Statement:\nA very large number of residents gathered outside the local police station to submit a memorandum highlighting police inaction against frequent thefts and burglaries in the neighbourhood during the past few months.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. The police authority should form a team to meet resident representatives and assure that concrete steps will be taken to stop the menace.\nII. The police authority should advise the gathered people to disperse and promise them quick action.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
When public grievances escalate to mass gathering at a police station, a balanced response requires (a) engagement with community representatives to diagnose and plan action, and (b) crowd management to maintain order. Both elements can legitimately operate together if executed lawfully and respectfully.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Issue: Alleged police inaction regarding theft/burglary.
• Public action: Large, organized presence to submit a memorandum.
• Authority goals: Restore confidence, maintain law and order, and address crime.

Concept / Approach:
Course I focuses on solution-oriented engagement; Course II addresses immediate crowd management while committing to action. They are complementary rather than mutually exclusive.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Standard practice includes joint action plans, WhatsApp/helpline escalation channels, and periodic review meetings; these are consistent with I. Simultaneously, lawful dispersal with proper communication is consistent with II.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that asking a crowd to disperse means ignoring grievances; when paired with engagement, it is part of responsible crowd management.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.