Statement:\nThe water table in most parts of the state has gone down to such a level that extraction for irrigation is no longer economical.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. Extraction of groundwater for any purpose in the state should be banned for some time to replenish the water table.\nII. The government should provide alternative methods of irrigation so that farmers are not compelled to use groundwater.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Severe groundwater depletion harms agriculture and ecosystems. Logical action must both curb extraction to allow recharge and enable farmers to sustain livelihoods through alternative irrigation options.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Observation: Groundwater levels so low that irrigation is uneconomical.
• Risks: Aquifer damage, salinity, energy use spikes, crop losses.
• Policy aims: Conservation plus livelihood protection.

Concept / Approach:
We examine necessity and feasibility. Temporary restrictions (with essential-use exemptions) can aid recovery; alternatives (surface irrigation, micro-irrigation, treated wastewater) reduce dependence on groundwater.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Successful groundwater policies combine regulation (caps/bans), pricing of electricity for pumping, micro-irrigation incentives, and recharge projects—confirming the need for both control and alternatives.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a blanket, indefinite ban; the logical policy is targeted, time-bound, and paired with alternatives.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.