Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Both I and II follow.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
Repeated food-borne illness indicates systemic hygiene failures. Immediate risk elimination and contractual accountability are warranted; criminal action requires due process and evidence.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
I terminates the unsafe vendor and seeks damages for breach. II protects students while a compliant vendor is onboarded or in-house kitchen is remediated. III (immediate arrest) is premature without investigation; health department and food safety authorities must first establish violations.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Suspend operations; collect samples; notify food safety authority for inspection.2) Terminate contract per clause; blacklist if regulations permit; arrange safe interim food.3) Educate students on food hygiene and reporting symptoms promptly.
Verification / Alternative check:
Terminating and advising abstinence immediately remove exposure; arrest is a legal outcome only after findings.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II: leaves accountability unaddressed. Only III: skips due process. None/All: ignore proportionality.
Common Pitfalls:
Reopening without clearance; inadequate vendor vetting thereafter.
Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.
Discussion & Comments