Statement: Many invitees at a marriage function suffered food poisoning and were rushed to nearby hospitals. Courses of Action: I. The Government should ban such marriage functions till further notice. II. The local hospitals should be advised to provide the best possible services to the affected people.

Introduction / Context:Acute food poisoning is a public-health incident requiring prompt clinical response and investigation. Banning all marriage functions is disproportionate and impractical.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Incident is linked to one function/caterer.
• Hospitals are within reach.
• Authorities can inspect and penalise violators.

Concept / Approach:II addresses immediate treatment needs; parallel actions (not in options) include sample testing, caterer inspection, and penalties. I imposes a blanket ban unrelated to specific culpability.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Alert hospitals for surge capacity (fluids, antibiotics if indicated).2) Collect food samples; trace caterer and kitchen hygiene lapses.3) Issue advisories to event organisers/vendors on compliance.

Verification / Alternative check:Clinical support saves lives; bans are overreach and harm livelihoods.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:I is excessive; “Either/Both” wrongly legitimise it.

Common Pitfalls:Delayed sample collection; poor follow-up on offenders.

Final Answer:Only II follows.