Decision-making – Urban housing crisis inference Statement: In the city, over 75% of people live in slums and sub-standard houses, reflecting on the Government’s housing and urban-development policies. Courses of Action: I. Create a separate department dedicated to housing and urban development. II. Review current policies regarding urban housing. III. Review rural-housing policies as well to avoid similar problems in rural areas.
-
AOnly I follows
-
BOnly I and II follow
-
COnly II follows
-
DEither II or III follows
-
EOnly II and III follow
Answer
Correct Answer: Only II follows
Explanation
Introduction / Context:The statement cites a severe urban housing problem and critiques policy outcomes. We must pick actions that logically address the specific problem presented, without unnecessary structural assumptions.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Urban residents: >75% in slums/sub-standard housing.
- The problem is explicitly urban.
- Existing policies may be ineffective.
Concept / Approach:When a policy’s effectiveness is questioned, a policy review is the minimum clear course. Creating a new department is an organizational change not supported by evidence. Rural review is unrelated to the cited urban crisis.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I: A separate department may or may not help; the statement does not suggest current departmental structure is the issue. I does not follow.II: Reviewing urban-housing policies directly addresses the identified failure. II follows.III: The problem specified is urban; extending to rural policy review is not implied by the statement. III does not follow.Verification / Alternative check:Policy reviews precede structural reforms; creating new bureaucracies without diagnosis is premature.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
- I and II / II and III: include unjustified elements.
- Either II or III: III is not logically demanded here.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming more departments automatically solve policy failure; scope creep from urban to rural without basis.
Final Answer:Only II follows