Read the following statement about ground water depletion and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true. Statement: The water table in most parts of the State has gone down to such a level that extraction of ground water for irrigation is no longer economical. Courses of action: I. Extraction of ground water for any purpose in the State should be banned for some time in order to replenish the water table. II. The government should make provisions for alternative methods of irrigation so that farmers are not compelled to depend on ground water.

Introduction / Context:
This course of action question concerns environmental and agricultural policy. The water table has dropped so low in most parts of the State that extracting ground water for irrigation has become uneconomical. You must decide which of the proposed actions the government should logically take to handle this serious problem. The question tests your ability to recognise both conservation needs and farmers welfare.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The water table is severely depleted in most parts of the State.
• Using ground water for irrigation is no longer economical due to the depth and cost of extraction.
• Farmers currently rely on ground water for irrigation.
• The government can regulate water use and can promote alternative irrigation methods.

Concept / Approach:
Logical courses of action must consider:

• Environmental sustainability: the need to allow the water table to recover.
• Agricultural viability: farmers still need water to grow crops.
• Balance between short term survival and long term resource protection.

We therefore examine both actions for relevance and feasibility.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. If the water table is already very low, continuing extraction will worsen the crisis and may lead to complete exhaustion of ground water. A temporary ban or strong restriction on ground water extraction can help the aquifer recover. As the statement points to a very serious level of depletion, a ban for some period is a logical conservation measure. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Since farmers can no longer economically rely on ground water, the government must provide alternative irrigation methods such as surface water schemes, drip irrigation, canal systems, or water harvesting structures. This ensures that farmers do not suffer complete crop failure while ground water use is restricted. Step 3: Evaluate the combination. I addresses the environmental side by limiting use of ground water, while II takes care of the economic and social side by supporting farmers. They are complementary and together form a complete strategy. Step 4: Decide which courses follow. Because the situation is grave and both protection of the resource and support for farmers are needed, both I and II logically follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If only I were implemented and ground water extraction was banned without alternatives, farmers could face severe hardship, crop loss, and even food supply issues. If only II were implemented and alternative irrigation methods were promoted but ground water extraction continued freely, the water table might drop further, leading to long term disaster. Only by combining a conservation measure with provision of alternatives can the State responsibly manage the crisis, confirming that both courses follow logically.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only course of action I follows: Incomplete because it ignores the immediate needs of farmers whose livelihoods depend on irrigation.
• Only course of action II follows: Incomplete because it does not directly stop the harmful over extraction of ground water.
• Either I or II follows: Incorrect because the two are not alternatives; they address different dimensions of the same problem.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent mistake is to select only the environmental or only the economic side of the response. Logical course of action questions often require you to recognise that complex problems need multi dimensional solutions. Another pitfall is to assume that a ban alone is sufficient, without considering how people affected by the ban will cope in the short term.

Final Answer:
Both courses of action I and II follow.