Read the following political situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which of the courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is completely true. Statement: The Finance Minister submits his resignation a month before the new budget is to be presented in the Parliament. Courses of action: I. The resignation should be accepted and another person should be appointed as the Finance Minister. II. The resignation should not be accepted.

Introduction / Context:
This course of action question is based on a political and administrative situation: the Finance Minister submits a resignation one month before the budget is due to be presented in the Parliament. The task is to decide whether either of the two strong and opposite courses of action necessarily follows from the given statement. This problem tests your ability to distinguish between what is logically compelled by the information and what is a matter of policy choice or opinion.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The Finance Minister has submitted his resignation.
• The resignation occurs a month before the scheduled presentation of the new budget.
• The government and leadership will need to decide how to respond to this resignation.
• No further information is given about reasons for resignation, political stability, or availability of replacements.

Concept / Approach:
In course of action reasoning:

• An action follows only if it can be clearly justified by the given facts.
• When the statement does not provide enough information to prefer one specific decision, we cannot say that a particular strong step necessarily follows.
• If two courses are direct opposites, both cannot logically follow at the same time unless the question explicitly asks for possible alternatives.

Here, I and II are mutually exclusive positions on the same decision.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Examine course of action I. Accepting the resignation and appointing a new Finance Minister may or may not be wise. The statement does not tell us why the minister resigned, what political considerations exist, or whether a capable replacement is ready. Therefore, we do not have sufficient information to declare that acceptance must follow. Step 2: Examine course of action II. Refusing to accept the resignation and asking the minister to continue may also be a possible course of action, but again the statement does not offer reasons to insist that this is the correct or necessary response. Step 3: Consider the mutual exclusivity. Since I and II directly contradict each other, they certainly cannot both follow simultaneously as logical consequences of the same limited information. Step 4: Decide whether at least one of them is logically compelled. Because the statement simply reports a resignation and gives no additional criteria, we cannot logically prefer acceptance or refusal. Thus, neither I nor II can be said to follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Imagine various real scenarios. If the resignation is due to serious misconduct or health reasons, acceptance may be appropriate. If the resignation is due to a temporary disagreement or pressure and the minister is essential for the upcoming budget, refusal may be better. Since both possibilities are compatible with the bare statement, the statement alone does not logically lead to either acceptance or refusal. Therefore, neither course is mandated by the given information, which verifies our conclusion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I follows: Incorrect because we lack information to justify mandatory acceptance.
• Only II follows: Incorrect because we lack information to justify mandatory refusal.
• Both I and II follow: Impossible because they are mutually exclusive decisions.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to import personal opinion or general political expectations into the reasoning. Some candidates may think that stability near budget time demands refusal of the resignation, while others may feel that a resigned minister must always be replaced. In logical reasoning questions, you must restrict yourself strictly to the information provided and not assume extra facts or norms that are not stated.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.