Statement: The world will have to feed more than a billion additional people in the next century; about half will be in Asia and will eat rice as their staple food.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Allocate more funds immediately for rice research to help ensure adequate supplies.\nII. Encourage people in Asia to change their food habits away from rice.\nIII. Grow more rice in countries outside Asia to meet the expected demand.

Introduction / Context:
The statement forecasts a major rise in global population with a large share in Asia, where rice is the primary staple. Course-of-action items ask for reasonable, feasible steps that flow from the facts without relying on extreme, ethically dubious, or impractical assumptions. Here, the core challenge is securing adequate rice supplies sustainably.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Global population will increase by over a billion in the next century.
• Roughly half of these additional people will live in Asia.
• Rice is the staple food for a significant share of the Asian population.
• Food systems need long-lead investments to avert shortages.

Concept / Approach:
Prudent action should expand supply capacity and reduce regional concentration risks. Increasing research funding (I) addresses yield ceilings, climate resilience, pest resistance, water-use efficiency, and fortification (e.g., zinc, vitamin A). Expanding production in non-Asian regions (III) diversifies agro-ecologies and trade routes, dampening shocks from monsoons, El Niño, or regional policy disruptions. Forcing a cultural dietary shift (II) is neither realistic nor ethically warranted; dietary preferences are deeply rooted and public policy should avoid coercive social engineering when viable supply-side measures exist.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify the binding constraint: meeting higher staple demand reliably.2) Evaluate I: research improves productivity and resilience → directly relevant and scalable.3) Evaluate II: mass habit change is infeasible at scale and not implied by the statement.4) Evaluate III: geographic diversification and trade expansion reduce systemic risk and can add net supply.

Verification / Alternative check:
Historically, productivity gains (Green Revolution) and diversified sourcing have prevented famines despite demand growth. No precedent suggests broad, forced dietary change is an effective first-line policy for staples.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Both I and II and Both II and III wrongly include II; All includes the same flaw. Only I under-leverages diversification benefits acknowledged in III.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that demand pressure justifies behavior modification campaigns instead of strengthening supply systems.

Final Answer:
Both I and III follow.