Statement — The chairman stressed the need for a more flexible education system and regretted that the curriculum has not been revised in pace with ongoing changes. Courses of Action — I. Review and revise the curriculum periodically. II. Make the education system more flexible.

Introduction / Context:
The statement contains two critiques: curriculum obsolescence and systemic inflexibility. Logical actions address each critique directly.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Gap 1: curriculum not revised with changing needs.
• Gap 2: rigid system (paths, assessments, credit transfer).
• COA I: periodic curriculum review/revision cycles.
• COA II: systemic flexibility (modular credits, electives, stackable learning).

Concept / Approach:
COA I targets content freshness; COA II targets structural adaptability. Both are necessary to meet the chairman’s concerns. Updating syllabi without flexibility still constrains learning; flexibility without relevant content remains hollow.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Many modern systems adopt both levers; one without the other yields limited gains.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing content revision with structural reform—they are complementary.

Final Answer:
Both I and II follow.