Decision making — price rise of essentials due to transporters’ strike Statement: Prices of essential commodities have risen sharply in the past few days due to a strike called by the transporters’ association. Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Order the transporters’ association to immediately withdraw the strike or face severe consequences. II. Make immediate alternative arrangements to ensure adequate supply of essentials in the market. III. Declare the strike illegal and imprison all those responsible.

Introduction / Context:
The problem is an economic-disruption scenario. We must choose actions that are lawful, proportionate, and effective at stabilizing supply, while avoiding measures that are coercive beyond due process or that escalate conflict.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Transporters’ strike has constrained supply, causing price spikes.
• The government can both negotiate and arrange alternative logistics.
• Civil liberties and labor laws constrain state responses to strikes.

Concept / Approach:
Look for a response that restores supply quickly without unlawful overreach. Negotiations and alternative supply chains are typical; blanket threats and mass imprisonment are neither necessarily legal nor constructive.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Since the clearly appropriate action is II alone and that combination is not among options A–D, the correct meta-choice per test logic is “None of these.”

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• A: Includes an unjustified threat in I.
• B: Includes unjustified criminalization in III.
• C and D: Both include III and/or I, which are excessive.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming punitive action is always justified during strikes. Proportional, lawful steps that secure public interest (like alternative transport) are better first responses.

Final Answer:
None of these