Statement:\nTwo local passenger trains collided while running in opposite directions on the same track because the signalling system failed for a brief period.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. The services of the motormen of the trains should be terminated immediately.\nII. The government should immediately constitute a task force to review the functioning of the signalling system.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
The stated cause of the collision is signalling failure. Rational courses must be aligned to the identified root cause and should avoid punitive steps against individuals without inquiry.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Event: Head-on/opposite-direction collision on same track.
• Cause given: Signalling failed briefly.
• Needs: Root-cause analysis, system audit, fail-safe mechanisms (block working, ATP), SOP review.

Concept / Approach:
Terminate vs. investigate: Termination (I) presumes motorman error despite a systems failure being cited. Systems engineering demands audits and technical remedies first; individual accountability, if any, should follow investigation.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Rail safety practice prioritizes independent investigation, safety recommendations, and corrective actions (hardware redundancy, procedural safeguards).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Attributing complex failures to frontline staff without systemic review.

Final Answer:
Only II follows.