Rearrange the parts of the sentence on national security and cyber threats in the correct order to form a coherent paragraph.

Introduction / Context:
This rearrangement question is about cyber threats to national security and the need for an action plan. The four parts are labelled P, Q, R, and S. Our task is to sequence them so that the example, the call to action, the institutional response, and the critical comment on planning all appear in logical order.

Given Data / Assumptions:

Q: Our country had earlier faced the problem with our neighbours backed defense hackers jamming our troop movement communication system giving false commands and creating a situation of uncertainty.
P: Taking this as a small example, we need to set-up an action plan on a war-footing.
S: The National Security Council is already in touch with server ministries like home, defense, communication, oil and natural gas, etc. to draw up plans.
R: But our planning and implementation gap has always been unpardonably long.
We must put these into a coherent paragraph.

Concept / Approach:
The paragraph should first mention the past incident that illustrates the problem, then draw a lesson or call for action from it, then describe what is already being done at the institutional level, and finally add a critical comment about shortcomings. Q provides the concrete example of hackers jamming communication systems. P then refers directly to this example through the phrase "Taking this as a small example" and calls for an action plan. S continues with information that the National Security Council is already coordinating with ministries. R concludes with the criticism that planning and implementation gaps are long. This order Q P S R is logical and matches option QPSR.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify the sentence that introduces the situation. Q mentions a previous incident where defense hackers jammed troop movement communication, which clearly sets the scene. Step 2: P begins with "Taking this as a small example", which must refer to the incident described in Q. So P must follow Q. Step 3: After the call for an action plan in P, S explains a positive step: the National Security Council is already working with ministries to draw up plans. Step 4: R starts with "But", indicating a contrast with what has just been said. It criticises the "planning and implementation gap", so it must come after S. Step 5: Thus, the correct order is Q P S R, matching option QPSR.

Verification / Alternative check:
Read the paragraph as QPSR: It first recalls a serious security incident, then argues that we need an action plan, then notes that the National Security Council is in touch with key ministries, and finally admits that the planning and implementation gap has historically been long. This reads like a realistic assessment, moving from incident to need, to action, to criticism. Other orders either present comment before context or contrast before specifying what it contrasts with.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

PQRS: Starting with P talks about "this example" without describing the example first, which makes it unclear.

SPRQ: Beginning with S mentions the National Security Council without context and then jumps around in an odd sequence of example, criticism, and call for action.

QPRS: Q followed by P is fine, but placing R before S would give criticism of "planning and implementation gap" before even mentioning that the National Security Council is working with ministries, which is less logical.

PRQS: Again, P cannot start because it refers back to "this example" which has not yet been given.

Common Pitfalls:
Some learners may choose PQRS simply because it matches the labels in alphabetical order, ignoring logical references. Remember that phrases like "Taking this as a small example" and words like "But" and "Therefore" almost always refer back to earlier statements. Tracking these references is key to solving reordering questions accurately.

Final Answer:
The correct arrangement of the parts is QPSR.