Statement–Courses of Action (migration due to agrarian distress): Villagers are migrating to cities after repeated crop failures have created precarious finances; evaluate which course(s) logically follow—(I) create alternative income sources in villages to retain people, (II) provide jobs in cities to support already-migrated villagers—based on immediacy, feasibility, and root-cause vs. relief balance.

Given data

• Statement: Crop failures have pushed villagers into financial distress, triggering unprecedented urban migration.
• Course I: Provide alternative village-based livelihoods to curb migration.
• Course II: Provide jobs to already-migrated villagers in urban areas for survival.

Concept / ApproachSound courses of action can simultaneously combine long-term structural fixes (addressing root causes) with short-term relief (supporting those already affected).

Step-by-step evaluationStep 1: Migration driver = agrarian income shock. Village-level alternatives (I) directly address the root cause and help retention.Step 2: Many have already migrated; immediate safety-net jobs (II) are necessary for survival and stability.Step 3: The two measures are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

Verification / AlternativePolicy practice commonly blends rural employment schemes (root-cause) with urban livelihood support (relief) during agrarian crises.

Common pitfalls

• Choosing only long-term or only short-term actions when both are warranted and feasible.

Final AnswerBoth I and II follow.