Statement: Many medical and engineering graduates are taking up jobs in administrative services and banks. Courses of Action: I. Advise all professionals to refrain from taking such jobs. II. The government should appoint a committee to find reasons for this trend and suggest remedial measures.

Introduction / Context:Occupational choices reflect incentives, opportunities, and personal preferences. A noticeable trend of STEM graduates joining administration/banking warrants understanding, not blanket discouragement.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• STEM graduates are opting for non-core roles.
• Underlying reasons are unspecified.

Concept / Approach:Advising professionals to refrain (I) infringes on freedom of employment and may ignore rational motives (job stability, pay, prestige, geographic preference). Appointing a committee (II) to diagnose causes—pay differentials, limited R&D roles, seat availability, training gaps—and recommend measures (better research opportunities, residency reforms, scholarships, industry linkages) is rational.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Reject I: prescriptive discouragement does not solve structural drivers.2) Accept II: evidence-led policy can align education output with sectoral needs while respecting choice.

Verification / Alternative check:Labour-market reforms rely on data (surveys, cohort studies) rather than moral suasion.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I and Either/Both elevate an inappropriate, liberty-curbing approach; Neither ignores the value of diagnosis.

Common Pitfalls:Assuming misallocation without investigating incentives and capacity constraints.

Final Answer:Only II follows.