Read the following statement about an Institute and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is completely true. Statement: The Committee has criticised the Institute for its failure to implement a dozen regular programmes despite an increase in staff strength and for not drawing up a firm action plan for studies and research. Courses of action: I. The broad objectives of the Institute should be redefined so that a practical action plan can be implemented. II. The Institute should submit a report explaining the reasons for not having implemented the planned programmes.

Introduction / Context:
This course of action problem deals with an Institute that has been criticised by a Committee for not implementing its regular programmes despite increased staff strength and for not preparing a firm action plan for studies and research. You must decide which of the suggested courses of action are logical responses to this criticism. The question focuses on accountability and structural reform in an academic or research institution.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The Institute has a set of regular programmes that were supposed to be implemented.
• The Institute has also failed to draw up a firm action plan for studies and research.
• A Committee has formally criticised the Institute for these failures.

Concept / Approach:
Logical courses of action in this context should:

• Address immediate accountability for non implementation.
• Improve future planning and alignment of objectives and actions.
• Recognise that both clarification of past failure and structural changes for the future may be needed.

We examine whether I and II satisfy these aims.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate course of action II first. If an Institute fails to implement planned programmes, it is reasonable and necessary for it to explain why. A report that gives reasons for non implementation helps the Committee and oversight bodies to understand obstacles, such as resource issues, management problems, or unrealistic targets. Therefore, II clearly follows as a demand for accountability. Step 2: Evaluate course of action I. The criticism also indicates that even with increased staff, the Institute could not implement programmes or create a proper action plan. This may suggest that current objectives are too broad, vague, or misaligned with actual capacity. Redefining broad objectives to make them more practical can help translate them into an implementable action plan. Thus, I is a logical longer term reform step. Step 3: Consider how I and II relate. II addresses past failure by seeking explanation. I looks to the future by aligning objectives with realistic planning. They are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Step 4: Decide which courses follow. Since both accountability for the past and structural reform for the future are sensible, both I and II follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Think of a real Institute in such a situation. It would first be asked to justify why programmes were not completed, which matches II. Then governance bodies might ask it to revise its objectives and planning method to avoid repetition of the same problem, which matches I. If only II is done, reasons are known but systemic issues may continue. If only I is done, changes are made without understanding what went wrong earlier. Combining both steps is the most rational approach, confirming our conclusion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I follows: Incomplete because it does not require the Institute to explain previous non performance.
• Only II follows: Incomplete because it does not demand any reform of objectives or planning to prevent future failures.
• Neither I nor II follows: Incorrect because doing nothing after such criticism would be unreasonable and irresponsible.

Common Pitfalls:
Some candidates may focus only on punishment or explanation and ignore the need for structural improvements, while others may jump only to reforms without seeking accountability for past failures. Logical course of action questions often expect you to recognise both dimensions when the statement clearly shows systemic issues and repeated non implementation.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.