Statement:\nA major part of the local market in the city was gutted due to a short circuit, causing extensive damage to goods and property.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. The Government should issue strict guidelines for all establishments regarding installation and maintenance of electrical fittings.\nII. The Government should relocate all the markets to the outskirts of the city.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
The problem is an electrical short-circuit leading to a market fire. Logical action should directly mitigate electrical risk; mass relocation is disproportionate and unrelated to the root cause.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Trigger: Faulty/overloaded electrical systems.
• Objective: Reduce fire risk and improve compliance.
• Tools: Codes, inspections, retrofits, enforcement.

Concept / Approach:
Targeted safety regulation and audits are proportionate and relevant. City-wide relocation is disruptive, costly, and does not inherently improve electrical safety.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Electrical Safety Certificates, load audits, fire drills, and early warning systems are standard remedies.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming location change equals risk reduction.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.