Statement — Despite good economic progress of the country, a significant number of under-nourished children are observed in rural areas. Courses of Action: I. The Government should increase Wealth Tax/Income Tax and use the proceeds for upliftment of the deprived class. II. The Government should introduce schemes such as free meals in primary schools and make primary education compulsory.

Introduction / Context:Under-nutrition among rural children persists even when macroeconomic indicators look healthy. Course-of-Action questions ask which responses are practical, targeted, and capable of addressing root causes. Here we compare a broad revenue measure (I) versus targeted social interventions (II).

Given Data / Assumptions:

• There is documented under-nutrition among rural children.
• I: Raise Wealth/Income Tax to fund upliftment.
• II: Provide free meals in primary schools and make primary education compulsory.

Concept / Approach:Sound actions should be specific, feasible, and closely tied to the problem. Mid-day meals and compulsory schooling reduce hunger directly and improve attendance, creating a reliable delivery channel for nutrition, deworming, micronutrients, and health education. Broad tax hikes are policy choices but are neither necessary nor sufficient by themselves; earmarking, leakage, and implementation pathways remain unspecified.

Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify bottlenecks: access to food during school hours, irregular attendance, poverty constraints.2) Map II to bottlenecks: free meals directly reduce hunger; compulsory schooling increases coverage and consistency.3) Evaluate I: revenue raising is indirect and contingent on separate program design; it does not, by itself, ensure nutritional outcomes.

Verification / Alternative check:Global experience shows school meal programs and compulsory primary education improve nutritional and educational outcomes when properly implemented. Financing may come from multiple sources, not necessarily a new tax hike.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I follows: too indirect. Either/Both: treats I as equally necessary though it is not. Neither: ignores a strong, targeted intervention in II.

Common Pitfalls:Assuming more revenue automatically yields better outcomes without specifying delivery mechanisms.

Final Answer:Only II follows.