Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: All follow
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:An “unprecedented” rise in cheating indicates both control failures and inadequate deterrence. The courses of action propose immediate administrative control, punitive consequences for offenders, and a legislative deterrent. We must determine whether all are reasonable and complementary.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
Step-by-Step Solution:
I follows: Immediate operational measures (strict invigilation, jam unauthorized devices, sealed transport of papers) directly curb malpractice.II follows: Debarring detected offenders for a defined period is a proportionate, established penalty that deters.III follows: Making cheating a cognizable offence empowers law-and-order support for organized malpractice rackets; legislation complements administrative rules.Verification / Alternative check:
Many jurisdictions blend institutional penalties with statutory offences for impersonation, paper leaks, and organized cheating.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Single or dual selections underuse available levers in the face of an “unprecedented” surge.Common Pitfalls:
Relying solely on invigilation without deterrent penalties or legal tools to counter organized fraud.Final Answer:
All follow
Discussion & Comments