Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: None of these
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:A bumper harvest can depress local prices if poorly managed but also creates export and buffer opportunities. The proposed actions must be farmer-sensitive, market-aware, and operationally practical.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Procurement price (MSP) is a farm-income floor; lowering it harms farmers and is typically avoided during gluts. Storage at farm level strains smallholders. Proactive exports can stabilise domestic markets and earn forex; thus, only III is sound.
Step-by-Step Solution:
I (lower procurement price): Not advisable; it undercuts farm incomes and discourages production. Does not follow.II (farmers store excess themselves): Many small farmers lack storage; quality and loss risks increase. Not a sound blanket action.III (export): Sensible to manage surplus and support prices. This follows—but the options provided do not offer “Only III”.Verification / Alternative check:
Standard policy levers include public procurement, buffer stocking, calibrated open-market sales, and exports—not lowering MSP nor shifting storage burdens to smallholders.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I+II, II+III, I+III, All: each includes at least one unsound action (I or II). Hence none of the listed combinations is correct.Common Pitfalls:
Assuming more actions are always better; ignoring farmer welfare and feasibility.Final Answer:None of these
Discussion & Comments