Introduction / Context:
The statement observes a trend: professionally trained graduates accepting administrative or banking roles. We must judge which response is reasonable policy. The options are: (I) advise professionals to refrain from such jobs; (II) appoint a committee to study reasons and recommend remedies.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- There is a noticeable shift of professionals toward non-core roles.
- Public policy typically respects individual choice while addressing systemic causes (pay, work conditions, opportunities).
- Action I is advisory and restrictive; Action II is investigative and solution-oriented.
Concept / Approach:
- A valid course should be practical, non-coercive, and aimed at understanding and improving systems.
- Discouraging individuals from lawful choices (I) is neither effective nor respectful of autonomy.
- Gathering evidence and proposing structural fixes (II) addresses root causes (e.g., compensation, career growth, job security).
Step-by-Step Solution:
Reject I: A blanket “refrain” advisory is unlikely to work and may be inappropriate.Accept II: A committee can analyze push–pull factors and recommend measures in core sectors to retain talent.Therefore, only II follows.
Verification / Alternative check:
Policy practice favors evidence-based interventions (surveys, benchmarking, incentives) over prescriptive career directives.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only I / Either / Both: Unwarranted or partly incorrect.Neither: Ignores the need to understand and address the trend.
Common Pitfalls:
Confusing observation with moral judgment; the appropriate response is diagnostic and systemic, not punitive.
Final Answer:
Only II follows
Discussion & Comments