Both are extreme courses of 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.
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.
I will help in cure while II will help in prevention.
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.
II is the immediate course of action while I can be implemented a bit later.
Both of these are extreme action.
Motormen should not be made the scapegoat for the failure of the signalling system.
if the govt goes for I, it would impinge on the autonomy of the private sector.
I follows as a measure of caution. But II won't solve the problem: poor electrical fittings would wreak havoc wherever the market be.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.