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.\n\nCourses of Action —\nI. Review and revise the curriculum periodically.\nII. 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.