Decision-making – Urban housing crisis inference Statement: In the city, over 75% of people live in slums and sub-standard houses, reflecting on the Government’s housing and urban-development policies. Courses of Action: I. Create a separate department dedicated to housing and urban development. II. Review current policies regarding urban housing. III. Review rural-housing policies as well to avoid similar problems in rural areas.

Introduction / Context:
The statement cites a severe urban housing problem and critiques policy outcomes. We must pick actions that logically address the specific problem presented, without unnecessary structural assumptions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Urban residents: >75% in slums/sub-standard housing.
• The problem is explicitly urban.
• Existing policies may be ineffective.

Concept / Approach:
When a policy’s effectiveness is questioned, a policy review is the minimum clear course. Creating a new department is an organizational change not supported by evidence. Rural review is unrelated to the cited urban crisis.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Policy reviews precede structural reforms; creating new bureaucracies without diagnosis is premature.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• I and II / II and III: include unjustified elements.
• Either II or III: III is not logically demanded here.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming more departments automatically solve policy failure; scope creep from urban to rural without basis.

Final Answer:
Only II follows