Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: if only II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:When a funding stream ceases, the immediate, generalizable response is to diversify and secure alternative funding compatible with mission and regulations. The question asks which action logically follows from the Government’s explicit stance.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:II is a direct, general consequence of the policy: look for permissible alternatives—CSR, philanthropy, social enterprise revenue, membership, local governments, impact funds—subject to compliance. I is one narrow path and may be infeasible or noncompliant for many NGOs due to FCRA/eligibility and strategic fit; the statement does not imply foreign tie-ups as the required or preferred path.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Translate policy → need: shift to non-state funding.2) II captures the necessary diversification imperative.3) I is optional/contingent; not a logical must.Verification / Alternative check:If foreign collaboration is restricted or unsuitable, II still stands; hence only II follows.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I/Either/Both: over-specifies a single channel without basis.Neither: contradicts the explicit need to raise funds elsewhere.Common Pitfalls:Assuming one funding route fits all NGOs; compliance and mission alignment vary widely.
Final Answer:Only II follows.
Discussion & Comments