Read the following situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true. Statement: There has been a significant drop in the water level of all the lakes that supply water to the city. Courses of action: I. The water supply authority should impose a partial cut in water supply to tackle the situation and conserve water. II. The government should appeal to all residents through mass media for minimal and careful use of water.

Introduction / Context:
This course of action question focuses on a civic problem: a significant drop in the water level in all lakes that provide water to a city. The goal is to evaluate which of the suggested actions would be logical, practical, and directly helpful in managing the situation. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which courses of action follow logically from it.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• All lakes that supply water to the city have experienced a significant drop in water level.
• The city depends on these lakes for its regular water supply.
• If the situation is not controlled, a serious water shortage may occur.
• The water supply authority and the government can take policy decisions and communicate with citizens.

Concept / Approach:
For a course of action to follow, it should:

• Be directly related to the problem described.
• Help manage or reduce the negative impact.
• Be practical and implementable in the short or medium term.

In a water shortage context, both supply side control and demand side management are commonly used tools.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. Imposing a partial cut in water supply is a classic supply side conservation measure. When reservoir levels fall, authorities frequently reduce supply so that the remaining water lasts longer. This action is directly linked to the problem and is reasonable in an emergency. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Appealing to residents through mass media to minimise use of water is a demand side management step. If citizens cooperate by reducing wastage, the city can stretch its limited water resources further. This is again a logical and necessary action in such a situation. Step 3: Determine if both can follow together. There is no contradiction between I and II. In fact, they complement each other. The authority can reduce supply while the government runs awareness campaigns to encourage careful use. Step 4: Select the option that best reflects this combined approach. Since both courses are relevant, practical, and jointly strengthen the response to the crisis, the correct answer is that both I and II follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider what would happen if only one course were implemented. If only I is implemented without public awareness, residents may complain and may not change their habits, leading to inconvenience and wastage. If only II is implemented, many people may ignore the appeal, and without a cut in supply the stored water may still run out too soon. Therefore, combining both measures is more robust and reflects realistic water management practice in times of scarcity.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I follows: This ignores the important role of public cooperation and education through mass media.
• Only II follows: This assumes that an appeal alone will be sufficient, which is not guaranteed in a serious shortage.
• Neither I nor II follows: This would mean doing nothing effective, which is clearly unreasonable when the lakes are already at low levels.

Common Pitfalls:
Some students wrongly think that appealing to residents is too weak to be a valid course of action, or that imposing cuts is too harsh. In real policy, both supply restrictions and public awareness campaigns are used together. Another pitfall is to treat course of action questions as if only one action can ever follow, when in many cases a combination is the most logical choice.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.