Statement — On average, about twenty people are run over by trains and die every day while crossing railway tracks through level crossings in India.\nCourses of Action:\nI. The railway authorities should be instructed to close all unmanned level crossings.\nII. Those who are found crossing the tracks when gates are closed should be fined heavily.

Introduction / Context:
Course-of-Action problems ask which responses are practical, effective, and proportionate to the stated issue. Here, frequent fatalities occur at level crossings, especially when users cross the tracks unsafely. We must evaluate whether closing all unmanned level crossings (I) and imposing heavy fines on violators (II) are sensible immediate actions.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• About 20 people die daily while crossing at level crossings.
• India has many level crossings, including unmanned ones.
• Option I: Close all unmanned crossings.
• Option II: Fine those who cross when gates are closed.

Concept / Approach:
Sound courses of action should be feasible in the near term, targeted at the cause, and not produce excessive collateral issues. Measures can be infrastructural (engineering/closure) or behavioral (enforcement/deterrence).

Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I: Closing all unmanned crossings immediately is logistically complex and may disrupt essential road connectivity unless substitute infrastructure (overbridges/underpasses, manning) is in place. It is not a realistic immediate step implied by the statement.Assess II: Hefty penalties for crossing when gates are closed directly target risky behavior. Enforcement by policing and cameras is implementable quickly and acts as deterrence.Hence, II is a pragmatic and immediate response; I is overbroad and impractical as an instant measure.

Verification / Alternative check:
Authorities often combine long-term engineering (grade separation, manning) with short-term enforcement. Since the statement does not mention readiness of alternatives, demanding blanket closures is premature, while enforcement aligns with immediate deterrence.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I follows: Ignores feasibility concerns. Both follow: Overstates what can be done instantly. Neither follows: Disregards viable deterrence through fines. Either follows: Treats both as interchangeable when they are not.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing aspirational infrastructure changes with immediate courses of action. The test prefers actions that can reasonably begin at once.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.