Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: Neither I nor II follows
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:A large failure rate in a single paper is a red flag that calls for diagnosis, not drastic punitive measures. Courses-of-action items ask what is sensible and logically justified given the problem.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Sound actions are diagnostic and corrective: review paper difficulty, teaching methodology, evaluation standards, syllabus alignment, and student support. Immediate mass expulsion or forced resignation lacks due inquiry.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Assess I (dropouts): This is extreme and contrary to academic objectives. Students deserve remedial support, re-evaluation opportunities, and academic counseling. Without investigation, forcing dropouts is unjustified. Does not follow.Assess II (faculty resignation): A high failure rate could arise from varied causes (paper quality, exam difficulty, misaligned teaching-learning, student preparedness). Calling for resignation without fact-finding is unsound. Does not follow.Verification / Alternative check:
Reasonable steps: constitute a moderation committee, analyze question-paper coverage and difficulty, offer tutorials, arrange a re-test if warranted, and review pedagogy. These align with institutional quality assurance.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Only II / Either / Both: all assume punitive actions without investigation, which is illogical.Common Pitfalls:
Assuming failure implies student or teacher fault alone; ignoring systemic academic quality checks.Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows
Discussion & Comments