Statement: School dropout rates are very high in rural areas because children support their parents in income-earning activities.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Expand public-awareness programs on the value of primary education to educate parents immediately.\nII. Compensation is not a remedy.

Introduction / Context:
The statement identifies economic participation by children as a key driver of rural school dropout. Valid courses of action should tackle root causes and be actionable by relevant authorities without asserting unsubstantiated generalizations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Children work to supplement household income.
• Parents’ perception of opportunity cost and education value affects attendance.

Concept / Approach:
Awareness drives (I) can shift parental attitudes, increase perceived long-term returns to schooling, and connect families to schemes (mid-day meals, scholarships). The blanket claim in II (“Compensation is not a remedy”) is a negative assertion, not an action, and is overly categorical—cash/conditional transfers are often effective.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is actionable and aligned with the cause (parental decision calculus) and may be paired with incentives and flexible school timings.2) II rejects compensatory mechanisms without evidence; it neither proposes a policy nor logically follows from the statement.3) Therefore, only I follows.

Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions successfully use awareness plus incentives (stipends, meals, bicycles) to reduce dropouts; awareness is a standard first-line action.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II is not a course of action and may be factually wrong in many contexts.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing policy stance (“not a remedy”) with a concrete step; ignoring multi-pronged solutions.

Final Answer:
Only I follows.