Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: All (1), (2) and (3)
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
This verbal reasoning task asks you to infer plausible effects from a clearly hazardous hydrological situation—rivers running above danger levels for weeks. The goal is to recognize realistic downstream consequences that typically follow such a cause.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
When a primary hazard persists over time and across geography, secondary impacts (flooding, displacement) and institutional responses (relief and alerts) are standard. We evaluate each proposed effect for realism and direct alignment with the cause.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) (1) Submergence of riverbank villages is a direct, common effect of rivers breaching danger levels.2) (2) Provision of alternate shelters is a typical emergency response to displacement and safety needs.3) (3) Issuing a high flood alert is a routine risk communication and preparedness step for a statewide hazard.
Verification / Alternative check:
All three effects are not only plausible but expected. No option contradicts the cause; each aligns with standard disaster management practice.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options limiting effects to subsets ((a), (b), (c)) understate reasonable consequences of a multi-week, multi-river crisis. “None of these” is incorrect because the listed effects are credible.
Common Pitfalls:
Over-cautious selection due to fear of “over-inference.” In real emergencies, multiple coordinated outcomes co-occur.
Final Answer:
All (1), (2) and (3).
Discussion & Comments