Introduction / Context:
This question examines environmental regulation and reasonable responses. A government notification restricts mining near ecologically sensitive zones. We must decide whether the proposed reactions are logical and practicable given conservation priorities and administrative realities.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Mining within 25 km of protected areas is banned by a departmental notification.
- Course I: Ask the department to immediately withdraw the notification.
- Course II: Shift parks, sanctuaries, and reserve forests to other non-mining areas.
- Assume the ban aims to protect biodiversity and habitats.
Concept / Approach:
- A valid course should address the stated problem responsibly (environmental risk) and be administratively feasible.
- Immediate withdrawal (I) ignores the environmental rationale and due process; better approaches would balance livelihoods with safeguards, not summarily cancel protections.
- Relocating protected areas (II) is ecologically unsound and administratively unrealistic; forests and ecosystems cannot simply be moved.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Evaluate I: Reactionary reversal undermines conservation without proposing mitigations (e.g., buffer zones, rehabilitation plans). Hence not a sound course.Evaluate II: Protected ecosystems are geographically fixed; relocating them is infeasible and conceptually flawed.Therefore, neither course logically follows as a reasonable response.
Verification / Alternative check:
More appropriate actions might include impact assessments, controlled permits with strict compliance, or economic transition programs—none of which match I or II.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Only II / Either / Both: Each accepts at least one impractical or irresponsible course.
Common Pitfalls:
Focusing solely on short-term industrial output while ignoring long-term ecological and legal constraints.
Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows
Discussion & Comments