Statement:\nMany people have encroached upon public land. The civic authority should take immediate steps to remove all unauthorized structures.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. The municipal corporation should advise all government hospitals to store an adequate supply of anti-malaria drugs.\nII. All encroachers should immediately be put behind bars and also be slapped with a hefty fine.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Course-of-action questions test whether the suggested responses directly and reasonably address the stated problem without being extreme, irrelevant, or violating due process. Here, the problem is encroachment on public land, and we must evaluate two proposed actions for logical relevance and practicality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Problem: Unauthorized occupation (encroachment) of public land.
• Objective: Remove illegal structures through lawful, effective measures.
• Constraints: Administrative feasibility, proportionality, due process, and relevance to the problem.

Concept / Approach:
We test each course against relevance (does it target the encroachment issue?), efficacy (is it likely to solve the problem?), and reasonableness (is it proportionate and lawful?). Courses that are unrelated, overly harsh without investigation, or that bypass due process should be rejected.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Appropriate actions would include: issuing removal notices, conducting surveys, providing relocation (where mandated), and executing lawful demolition with police support. These alternatives confirm that I is off-topic and II is overkill.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Equating “toughness” with logic; harshness without legality and relevance is not a sound course of action. Also, introducing an unrelated public-health measure does not solve an urban land-use violation.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.