Read the following situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which of them logically follows from the information given, assuming the statement is true. Statement: Duty free technology parks, where foreign firms can manufacture electronic hardware components, are proposed to be established at various places in the country. Courses of action: I. The government should immediately implement the proposal in order to augment foreign currency reserves by exporting the products manufactured in these parks. II. The government should not implement the proposal because it will hinder indigenous production of hardware components.

Introduction / Context:
This course of action question deals with a government proposal to create duty free technology parks for foreign firms to manufacture electronic hardware components. The main skill tested here is your ability to judge which suggested course of action logically follows from the given statement without adding extra assumptions that are not supported by the information.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Duty free technology parks are proposed to be set up in various places in the country.
• Foreign firms will be allowed to manufacture electronic hardware components in these parks.
• Products manufactured in such parks can potentially be exported and bring in foreign currency.
• There is a concern that foreign participation might affect indigenous production.

Concept / Approach:
In course of action problems, a course of action follows if it:

• Directly addresses the situation stated.
• Is reasonable and practically possible.
• Does not depend on assumptions that are too strong or not mentioned.

We must evaluate each proposed course strictly on the basis of the information given, not on personal opinion or imagined extra facts.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine course of action I. If duty free technology parks are implemented, foreign firms can produce hardware components and export them. This can reasonably be expected to augment foreign currency reserves. Encouraging such implementation is consistent with the potential economic benefit mentioned. Therefore, course of action I logically follows from the proposal. Step 2: Examine course of action II. This suggests that the proposal should not be implemented because it will hinder indigenous production. However, the statement does not provide any information that indigenous manufacturers will necessarily suffer due to foreign firms. This effect is speculative and not directly supported by the text. Step 3: Determine whether II can be treated as a logical course. Since there is no data that indigenous firms will be harmed, saying that the government should not implement the proposal is based on an unproven fear rather than the given facts, so II does not logically follow. Step 4: Compare the options. We have concluded that I follows and II does not. Therefore, the option that states Only I follows must be the correct answer.

Verification / Alternative check:
To verify, consider what would happen if the government implemented the parks. There is a clear link between increased exports and foreign currency reserves, which supports course of action I. On the other hand, even if there could be some competition with local industry, the statement does not mention any specific negative effect on indigenous producers. Without explicit information, stating that the proposal should not be implemented is not logically compelled by the problem statement.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only II follows: This is incorrect because II is purely speculative and not supported by the given data.
• Neither I nor II follows: This ignores the clear economic logic that supports I.
• Both I and II follow: This is impossible, because I and II are contradictory recommendations and we have no basis for rejecting the proposal outright.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates are tempted to overvalue concerns about foreign firms hurting domestic industry and quickly accept II. However, course of action questions require you to stay within the limits of the given information. Unless the statement explicitly indicates a harmful impact on indigenous production, you cannot conclude that the proposal should be blocked. Another pitfall is to think that both contradictory courses can follow, which is logically inconsistent in this context.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.