Statement — Officials say paucity of funds has led to the pathetic condition of a brilliant architectural structure.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Design a new architectural structure for the building.\nII. Find out the reasons for the poor condition of the structure.\nIII. Provide grants to improve the structure’s condition.

Introduction / Context:
When heritage or notable architecture deteriorates, the priority is conservation, not replacement. Investigation plus funding typically form the core response.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Paucity of funds cited as cause.
• I: Create a new structure (replacement).
• II: Diagnose reasons (funding, maintenance lapses, leakage).
• III: Provide grants for conservation/restoration.

Concept / Approach:
II ensures accurate problem framing (is it only funds, or also governance?). III addresses the immediate need for restoration. I discards the asset and its heritage value and does not solve maintenance systems.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conduct structural audit and maintenance/finance review.2) Allocate grants with conservation plans and accountability.3) Establish O&M funding streams and monitoring.

Verification / Alternative check:
Conservation best practices favor repair and restoration.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I: Irrelevant to saving the existing structure. Single-option choices are incomplete.

Common Pitfalls:
Replacing instead of preserving cultural assets.

Final Answer:
Both II and III follow.