Statement:\nA major river in the city has become a polluted, dirty canal after tonnes of sewage were discharged into it over the years.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. All those who dump garbage and sewage into the river should be penalized.\nII. The government should modify the sewage system and provide an alternate route for the city’s waste instead of the river.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Chronic river pollution typically arises from weak enforcement and inadequate infrastructure. Effective remediation needs both deterrence (penalties) and structural solutions (sewage treatment and diversion), not one in isolation.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Condition: River degraded into a polluted canal by years of sewage inflow.
• Actors: Households, industries, municipalities.
• Gaps: Enforcement, sewage networks, STP capacity, illegal connections.

Concept / Approach:
We test for complementarity. Punitive measures without infrastructure create non-compliance incentives but few alternatives; infrastructure without penalties invites relapse. Both are required to correct and sustain outcomes.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
River rejuvenation programs globally combine enforcement with infrastructure, monitoring, and public participation—corroborating the need for both strands.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Expecting penalties to work when compliant infrastructure is absent; or investing in infrastructure while tolerating illegal dumping.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.