Statement:\nThe number of dropouts in government schools has significantly increased in urban areas over the past few years.\n\nCourses of Action:\nI. The government should immediately close down all such urban schools where the dropout rate exceeds 20 percent.\nII. The parents of all students who dropped out of government schools in urban areas should be punished.\n\nWhich course(s) of action logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Rising school dropouts signal systemic issues (quality, access, poverty, migration, safety). Logical courses should address causes—remediation, support, accountability—rather than inflicting blanket closures or punitive measures on parents without due cause.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Problem: Significant increase in dropout rates in urban government schools.
• Potential causes: economic stress, child labour, learning loss, infrastructure deficits, teaching quality, language issues, safety concerns.
• Policy standards: proportionality, child rights, evidence-based intervention.

Concept / Approach:
Assess each course for directness, fairness, and efficacy. Punitive and indiscriminate measures typically fail these tests and can exacerbate problems.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Constructive actions include: targeted attendance drives, bridge courses, conditional cash transfers, school improvement plans, community engagement, and accountability for chronic non-performance with support.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing symptoms (dropout numbers) with causes; choosing punitive optics over solutions.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II follows.