Statement: After a community meal, many residents fell ill and were hospitalized (recurrent incidents in recent months). Courses of Action: I. Terminate the school/community canteen contract immediately and seek compensation. II. Advise all residents/students to stop consuming food from the canteen until cleared. III. Arrest the canteen owner immediately for negligence.
-
ANone follows
-
BOnly II follows
-
COnly III follows
-
DOnly I and II follow
-
EAll follow
Answer
Correct Answer: Only I and II follow
Explanation
Introduction / Context:Repeated food-borne illness indicates systemic hygiene failures. Remedies prioritize stopping exposure and enforcing contractual accountability, while due process governs criminal liability.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Fourth episode within six months.
- Link to canteen food is strong.
Concept / Approach:Terminate and seek damages (I) to protect patrons and create accountability. Issue immediate advisories (II) to halt consumption pending fresh approvals. Immediate arrest (III) without investigation remains improper; proceed only after establishing negligence per statute.
Step-by-Step Solution:1) Suspend/terminate vendor; deep-clean premises (I).2) Notify public to avoid the food; arrange alternate catering (II).3) Initiate statutory inspection, sampling; prosecute if violations confirmed.
Verification / Alternative check:Food safety enforcement sequences contract, administrative, and criminal actions.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:III presumes guilt; “All” inherits this flaw; single-option answers under-address exposure and accountability.
Common Pitfalls:Resuming services before corrective actions are validated.
Final Answer:Only I and II follow.