Statement–Courses of Action (railway safety at level crossings): On average, about twenty people die every day after being run over by trains while crossing tracks at level crossings; evaluate which remedial policy logically follows—(I) instruct railway authorities to close all level crossings outright, (II) impose heavy fines on anyone found crossing when the gates are closed—focusing on practicality, deterrence, and alignment with the stated problem.

Given data

• Fact: ~20 daily fatalities occur while people cross railway tracks at level crossings.
• Course I: Close all level crossings.
• Course II: Heavily fine people who cross when the gates are closed.

Concept / Approach
A sound course of action should be feasible, proportionate, implementable at scale, and directly target the unsafe behaviour that causes deaths.

Step-by-step evaluation
Step 1: Course I requires eliminating thousands of level crossings overnight. This is impractical without alternative infrastructure (overbridges/subways) and would severely disrupt road–rail connectivity.Step 2: Course II directly targets the risky act—crossing against closed gates—through deterrence (heavy fines), signage, enforcement, and publicity.Step 3: Therefore, II is an immediate, targeted, and enforceable action; I is overbroad and not implied by the statement.

Verification / Alternative check
Combining enforcement with awareness drives and physical barriers is standard practice; outright closure of every crossing is neither stated nor necessary.

Common pitfalls

• Assuming that the most extreme measure must follow simply because the problem is severe.
• Ignoring feasibility and lead time for capital-intensive alternatives.

Final Answer
Only II follows.