Only Course of action I can follow as public awareness programme should be expanded immediately.
Only Courses of action II follow as primary education may eradicate the problem.
Both I and II follow. I follows because such an advance notice makes the passengers mentally prepared; II follows as an inevitable courses of action.
Going for I is an extreme action and should be resorted to only when the students fail to behave themselves after repeated warnings like the one given in II.
I follows, because the patrolling would create a fear among the robbers and act as deterrent. II does not follows because it is not feasible.
Both I and II follow, because providing nourishment to children needs money. Also, making primary education compulsory is a step forward to tackle the problem of under-nourishment.
I is advisable in the short term while II in the long term.
All the courses of action are worth pursuing for the problem as defined in the statement, because flood affected persons need all sort of relief i.e., food, medical facilities etc.
Only Courses of action III provides a feasible and effective course to combat the problem, that impediments in the way of speedy and proper rehabilitation should be removed.Courses of action I and III are not effective courses.
Courses of action II and III are feasible and effective to combat the problem.
Condition of the architectural structure can be improved by way of adequate finance, Hence course of action III, that grant should be given to improve the condition of the structure, is the right courses of action.
Comments
There are no comments.Copyright ©CuriousTab. All rights reserved.