Statement — Despite good economic progress of the country, a significant number of under-nourished children are observed in rural areas.\nCourses of Action:\nI. The Government should increase Wealth Tax/Income Tax and use the proceeds for upliftment of the deprived class.\nII. 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.