Introduction / Context:
The statement diagnoses a knowledge gap: policy makers are out of touch with lived realities. The logical action must target that gap directly, not impose sweeping structural changes without justification.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Cause cited: decision makers “know absolutely nothing about the poor.”
- Proposed actions: I) send decision makers to grassroots; II) decision makers should come from poorer sections; III) replace the present decision makers entirely.
Concept / Approach:
We accept the premise (knowledge deficit) and pick minimally sufficient action(s) that correct it. Exposure, field immersion, participatory assessments, and data-driven feedback loops are coherent responses.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I (go to grassroots): Directly addresses the knowledge gap by experiential learning, stakeholder consultations, and evidence collection. Follows.II (must come from poorer sections): This is not logically compelled; empathy and competence do not depend solely on socioeconomic origin.III (replace decision makers): Premature. If the problem is ignorance, training and mandated field immersion can fix it; replacement is not a necessary conclusion.
Verification / Alternative check:
Policy practice commonly prescribes field visits, social audits, and community engagement to bridge knowledge gaps without wholesale replacement.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II / Only either I or III / All: These assert unnecessary or extreme steps beyond the diagnosed need.
Common Pitfalls:
Equating origin with insight; assuming replacement is the only remedy.
Final Answer:
Only I follows
Discussion & Comments