The following four labelled sentences P, Q, R and S, when properly sequenced, form a coherent paragraph about leaders addressing the World Economic Forum at Davos. Select the most logical order of the sentences.

Introduction / Context:
This para-jumble question discusses what a political leader can do when addressing the plenary session of the World Economic Forum at Davos. The sentences mention two opportunities and then comment on the global shortage of true statesmen. You must determine the order that presents these ideas clearly and logically.

Given Data / Assumptions:
- P: Any leader asked to address the plenary session of the World Economic Forum at Davos has an opportunity to do two things.
- Q: The first is to pitch his (or her) country strongly to foreign companies and investors.
- R: The second is to build the brand of both the individual and the country by looking at issues and concerns beyond those that just concern his or her country.
- S: The world, after all, is sorely lacking in statesmen (and stateswomen) of global stature.
- We want an order that introduces the situation, lists two opportunities in order, and ends with a broader reflection.

Concept / Approach:
The sentence that mentions “two things” clearly belongs at the beginning, because it sets up a list. That is P. Q naturally describes “the first” of these two things, and R describes “the second”. Finally, S is a reflective sentence commenting on the global lack of statesmen, which serves as a concluding observation after discussing what a leader can do at Davos. Thus, the coherent order is P–Q–R–S.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Identify the sentence that sets up the structure. P talks about an opportunity to do two things, so it must come before any mention of first or second.
Step 2: Q begins with “The first is…”, clearly referring back to the “two things” in P, so Q logically follows P.
Step 3: R begins with “The second is…”, which must follow the “first” mentioned in Q, so R comes third.
Step 4: S does not fit into the numbered list; instead, it provides a broader comment about the world lacking leaders of global stature, so it is best placed at the end as a concluding thought.

Verification / Alternative check:
Read PQRS as a complete paragraph. It introduces a leader's two opportunities at Davos, then lists and explains the first opportunity (pitching the country to investors), followed by the second (building the broader brand of country and leader by addressing global issues), and finally comments on the scarcity of true global statesmen. The flow is logical and satisfying. Any other ordering, such as QPRS or RPQS, would separate the introduction from its corresponding “first” and “second” explanations, making the paragraph confusing.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- QPRS: Starts with “The first” without explaining what two things are being referred to, which is illogical without P first.
- RPQS and RQPS: Similarly misplace R, the “second”, breaking the clear numerical order set up by P.

Common Pitfalls:
When you see words like “first”, “second”, “latter” and “former”, pay immediate attention to the sentence that introduces the list or comparison. Incorrect orders usually separate these references from their anchors. Always try to keep such numbered or paired items together and in sequence to preserve clarity.

Final Answer:
The most logical order of the sentences is PQRS.