Statement: Sales of ball-point pens manufactured by company Lixus have declined considerably ever since the same company introduced a gel-ink pen in the market.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Lixus should stop manufacturing ball-point pens altogether.\nII. Lixus should immediately withdraw all gel-ink pens from the market so as to force people to buy ball-point pens.

Introduction / Context:
The statement highlights portfolio cannibalization: after Lixus launched gel-ink pens, its own ball-point sales declined. Course-of-action questions test whether suggested responses are reasonable, feasible, and proportionate to the stated problem without creating larger risks for the organization or public.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Same company (Lixus) makes both ball-point and gel-ink pens.
• Ball-point sales have fallen “considerably” post gel launch.
• No data on profitability, market share by segment, margins, or strategic intent (e.g., premiumization).

Concept / Approach:
Valid actions should be practical, directly address the problem, and avoid overreaction. They should consider demand shifts, pricing, positioning, and channel strategy. Discontinuation or withdrawal are extreme measures and typically follow deeper analysis (profit, brand architecture, customer segments) and exploration of milder remedies (price packs, promotions, repositioning, targeted distribution).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Course I (stop ball-points) is drastic. Ball-points may still have profitable niches (exam use, carbon copies, rough paper), different price elasticity, and lower manufacturing cost. Eliminating them discards loyal users and cedes shelf space to competitors.2) Course II (withdraw gels) punishes the successful product, harms consumer surplus, and invites competitor capture. It also ignores the possibility that the overall brand profit improved despite internal mix shifts.3) Better responses (not given) include segmenting by use-case, bundling, differential pricing, or promoting specific benefits (smudge resistance vs smooth flow).

Verification / Alternative check:
Firms routinely manage internal cannibalization via portfolio strategy rather than product bans. A decline in one SKU may be acceptable if total category profit rises.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I or Only II: each is unwarranted and extreme.
• Either/Both: still endorse unjustified extremes.

Common Pitfalls:
Equating volume decline with failure, ignoring margins and strategic mix; reacting with bans instead of optimization.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.