In this course of action logical reasoning problem, the Ministry of Tourism has reported that recent social disturbances in the country have caused a considerable decrease in the number of foreign tourists, resulting in an estimated financial loss of about 100 crore rupees. On this basis, which of the following proposed courses of action should logically be followed to address the situation?

Introduction / Context:
This question tests course of action reasoning in the context of tourism and economic loss. The Ministry of Tourism has reported that social disturbances have reduced the number of foreign tourists and caused a significant financial loss of about 100 crore rupees. We are given two possible courses of action: providing financial support to the tourism sector and warning foreign tourists that they visit at their own risk. Our task is to decide which actions logically follow from the situation and are responsible, practical, and aligned with long term interests of the country and its tourism industry.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Recent social disturbance in the country has occurred.
• The number of foreign tourists has decreased considerably as a result.
• The country has suffered a financial loss of about 100 crore rupees in tourism related revenue.
• Course of action a: The government should provide financial support to the tourism sector.
• Course of action b: Foreign tourists should be informed that they visit the country at their own risk.

Concept / Approach:
In course of action questions, a valid course must be directly related to the problem, practically implementable, and socially responsible. It should aim to reduce the negative impact, prevent further damage, or support recovery. Measures that may worsen the situation, damage reputation, or contradict common sense are usually considered invalid. Here, the problem is reduced tourist inflow and financial loss due to social disturbances. We evaluate whether providing support and issuing risk warnings are suitable responses.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Understand the impact. The tourism sector is facing revenue loss due to fewer visitors, which affects hotels, travel operators, guides, and related businesses.Step 2: Evaluate course of action a. Providing financial support to the tourism sector can help stabilize affected businesses, support employment, and maintain infrastructure until conditions improve. It directly addresses the loss and is a common governmental response to sector specific shocks.Step 3: Evaluate course of action b. Informing foreign tourists that they visit at their own risk may further discourage visitors. It emphasises danger instead of restoring confidence. While transparent information about security is important, an official statement framed as a risk warning harms the image of the country as a safe destination.Step 4: Compare with the problem. The target is to reduce loss and revive tourist inflow. Financial support helps sustain the sector in the short term and signals governmental commitment. A formal risk warning would likely reduce tourist numbers further and is counter productive.Step 5: Conclude which course logically follows. Only course of action a is a constructive and logical response, while b goes against the objective of supporting tourism.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider practical policy making. When an industry faces temporary decline due to disturbances, governments often provide tax relief, subsidies, marketing support, or credit assistance. These are forms of financial support to preserve jobs and capacity. At the same time, tourism boards try to rebuild a positive image, not warn people away. Therefore, course a is consistent with common policy practice, whereas course b would worsen the situation and is unlikely to be officially recommended.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option a (Only course of action b follows) is incorrect because course b would reduce tourist arrivals further instead of addressing the loss.
• Option c (Both a and b follow) is wrong because adding course b contradicts the goal of reviving tourism, even though course a is valid.
• Option d (Neither a nor b follows) is wrong because course a clearly provides practical support to the affected sector.
• Option e (None of these) is wrong since one of the listed courses, a, does follow logically.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to think that cautioning people is always a safe answer. In reasoning questions, we must check whether a proposed action aligns with the main objective. Another pitfall is ignoring economic effects. Warning tourists in this aggressive way directly contradicts the need to restore confidence and revenue. Learners must distinguish between providing accurate security information and issuing a discouraging blanket risk statement.

Final Answer:
Only course of action a follows.