Decision making — rising city pollution threatening inhabitants Statement: Any further increase in city pollution from industrial effluents and automobile exhaust will pose a severe threat to inhabitants. Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Immediately close all factories in the city. II. Allow automobiles on the roads for no more than four hours a day. III. Restrict the issue of fresh licences to factories and automobiles.

Introduction / Context:
The prompt signals an impending risk if pollution increases further. We must choose actions that are proportionate, enforceable, and targeted, avoiding extreme measures that create unreasonable social and economic disruption.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• The city already faces high pollution; any additional increase will be dangerous.
• Key sources are industry (effluents) and automobiles (exhaust).
• Authorities can regulate licences and operating conditions.

Concept / Approach:
Look for preventive, sustainable policy responses. Distinguish between sensible regulation (licensing, standards) versus draconian blanket bans that ignore essential services and practical constraints.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Best practice emphasizes emission norms, inspection/maintenance, fuel quality, congestion management, and permitting policies. Of the three, licensing control is the rational, measured step aligned with policy norms.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I: Excessive; the statement warns of “further increase,” not that current activity must cease.
• II: Operationally unrealistic and punitive without nuanced targeting.
• All follows / None follows: Both inconsistent with the above evaluation.

Common Pitfalls:
Believing only extreme measures solve environmental problems. Incremental regulatory levers often produce better compliance and stability.

Final Answer:
Only III follows