Statement:\nA major part of the local market 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 markets to the outskirts of the city.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Electrical fires in crowded markets point to safety lapses and maintenance issues. Logical actions should target the specific risk with proportionate, implementable measures rather than sweeping relocations that ignore cost, livelihoods, and urban planning realities.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Cause: Short circuit led to extensive fire damage.
• Risk factors: Old wiring, overloading, lack of earthing/MCBs, poor maintenance.
• Policy levers: Codes, inspections, retrofits, penalties, and training.

Concept / Approach:
We test each course for relevance and proportionality. Guidelines plus enforcement and periodic audits address the root risk; relocating all markets is drastic and not causally necessary.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Effective measures include mandatory Electrical Safety Certificates, load audits, sprinkler/alarms, periodic inspections, and penalties for non-compliance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming changing location solves safety culture and compliance issues.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.