The first course of action does not match the scale of the problem. The problem is not so big as to merit a govt enquiry. It is enough that the civic body take action and hence II follows.
Following course I would be an infringement of the right to freedom of individuals. however if the lackening of their respective fields are found out and removed, the professionals would surely give up the idea of opting for other jobs. Hence, only course II follows.
Re-election would demand repeated expenses and following course II would reduce the voter base permanently. Instead, an awareness should be created among the people to use their right to vote effectively. So, neither I nor II follows.
The situation demands first diverting other trains to different routes so as to avert any accident, and then clearing the tracks ass soon as possible. Thus, both the courses follows.
Clearly, war is the last resort. First, peaceful talks and negotiations should be indulged in, to settle the issues of dispute. So, only course II follows.
The situation can be tackled by periodic cuts in supply, and urging people to conserve water. O, both the courses follow.
I will help in cure while II will help in prevention.
II is an extreme action and hence does not follows. I is a proper course of action. Note that taking immediate steps is not the same immediate removal of the constructions. Which may again have been considered to be extreme courseof the action.
if the rainfall is normal. It does not mean we would deprive the farmers of his due.The action may be deemed to be correct only if we know that they are the reversal of policies which has been framed during crisis years.
Both are extreme courses of action.
II is the immediate course of action while I can be implemented a bit later.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.