Increasing levels of air pollution are creating serious health hazards for people living in cities. In this course of action logical reasoning question, consider the proposals that all industries should be shifted to the outskirts and that public transport vehicles should run on compressed natural gas. Which combination of these courses of action should logically be followed to help reduce urban air pollution?

Introduction / Context:
This question addresses environmental policy and health in urban areas. The statement notes that increasing air pollution is creating health hazards for city residents. Two courses of action are suggested: shifting all industries to the outskirts of cities and converting all public transport vehicles to compressed natural gas, also known as CNG. The reasoning task is to evaluate whether one, both, or neither of these actions logically follows from the concern about health hazards caused by air pollution.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Air pollution in cities is rising.
• This increase is causing health hazards for people living in urban areas.
• Course of action I: All industries should be shifted to the outskirts of cities.
• Course of action II: Transport authorities should convert all public transport vehicles to run on CNG.
• We assume industries and vehicular emissions are major contributors to urban air pollution.

Concept / Approach:
Course of action questions require us to evaluate whether proposed steps are relevant to the stated problem and are broadly reasonable. Since the problem is air pollution leading to health issues, any course that significantly reduces major sources of pollutants can be considered. Industries and diesel or petrol based public transport are known sources of particulate matter and harmful gases. Reducing their impact within city limits aligns with the stated purpose. The fact that a measure is ambitious does not automatically make it invalid in such reasoning questions, as long as it targets the cause effectively.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Analyse the role of industries. Many industries emit smoke, gases, and fine particles. When located inside cities, these emissions directly affect residents nearby, increasing respiratory illnesses.Step 2: Evaluate course of action I. Shifting industries to the outskirts reduces concentrated industrial emissions within densely populated zones. This is a direct step toward improving urban air quality, though it must be properly zoned and regulated.Step 3: Analyse the role of public transport. Buses, taxis, and other vehicles using conventional fuels are major sources of urban air pollution.Step 4: Evaluate course of action II. Converting public transport to CNG significantly lowers emissions of harmful pollutants per vehicle. This is a widely accepted method for improving city air quality.Step 5: Connect both measures to the problem. Since both industry emissions and vehicular emissions are important contributors, acting on both sides provides a stronger, more comprehensive response to the health hazard.Step 6: Conclude that both courses of action I and II logically follow from the statement.

Verification / Alternative check:
Real world policies in many cities have indeed moved polluting industries out of central zones and promoted cleaner fuels such as CNG for public transport. These actions are not random; they are guided by the same logic that the question presents: reducing exposure of residents to harmful emissions. Therefore, from a reasoning perspective, accepting both actions as appropriate is consistent with known environmental strategies for dealing with urban air pollution.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Option a (Only I follows) ignores the significant contribution of public transport emissions.
• Option b (Only II follows) fails to address industrial pollution inside the city.
• Option c (Either I or II follows) suggests that only one is needed, but both are relevant and complementary.
• Option e (Neither I nor II follows) is clearly wrong, since both actions directly target major sources of air pollutants.

Common Pitfalls:
Learners sometimes reject bold actions as impractical, forgetting that reasoning questions are about logical suitability rather than detailed feasibility studies. Another error is to assume that action on only one source is enough. In reality and in exam logic, multiple coordinated measures are often recommended when a problem has several major causes. Recognising that industries and vehicles both pollute air helps to see why both courses follow.

Final Answer:
Both course of action I and course of action II follow.