Question 1

Statement — Inflation has reached its highest level in twenty years with no sign of softening in the coming months.  Courses of Action — I. The Government should reduce taxes on essential commodities with immediate effect. II. The Government should …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Inflation control involves demand- and supply-side tools. Immediate relief for consumers often comes from tax and duty rationalization on essentials, while coercive price controls on producers can distort markets and reduce supply.Given Data / Assumptions:State: inflation elevated and persistent.COA I: cut taxes on essentials (VAT, cesses) to lower retail prices quickly.COA II: direct farmers to sell at lower prices.Concept / Approach:COA I directly and lawfully lowers consumer prices by trimming the tax component, with predictable, implementable impact. COA II interferes with farmgate pricing and may be unenforceable, unfair, and counterproductive (discouraging supply). The statement does not suggest coercive controls over individual producers; it calls for policy levers within the Government’s control.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Target government-controlled components of price (I).2) Avoid directives that breach market mechanisms and farmer viability (II).3) Conclude only I follows.Verification / Alternative check:Even when supply is tight, rationalizing taxes can moderate spikes; asking farmers to accept lower prices may reduce supply and worsen inflation.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: overlooks feasibility and fairness.Neither: ignores a legitimate instrument directly referenced by the premise.Common Pitfalls:Assuming producers absorb inflation without consequence; cost structures matter.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 2

Statement — The State Government has decided to declare Kala-azar a notifiable disease under the Epidemic Act, 1897. Family members or neighbors of a patient are liable to be punished if they fail to inform the authorities.  Courses of Action — I. M…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Declaring a disease notifiable is a surveillance and control measure. Its effectiveness depends on robust implementation and public awareness of duties and consequences, especially where community reporting is mandated.Given Data / Assumptions:Legal move: notifiable status under Epidemic Act.Obligation: family/neighbors must inform authorities; non-compliance is punishable.COA I: ensure efficient enforcement—clear SOPs, reporting channels, rapid response.COA II: communicate deterrence via media to raise compliance.Concept / Approach:Legal designation without operational follow-through (I) fails. Awareness campaigns (II) increase reporting and early treatment by clarifying duties, penalties, and helplines. Together they align law, behavior, and public health outcomes. Hence both follow logically from the decision.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Implement surveillance workflows and rapid case management (I).2) Elevate public awareness and deterrence (II).3) Conclude: both follow.Verification / Alternative check:Either step alone is weaker: enforcement without awareness yields low compliance; awareness without capacity frustrates reporters.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either/Neither: each omits a necessary pillar for effective notifiable-disease control.Common Pitfalls:Overreliance on punitive messaging without providing simple reporting mechanisms.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 3

Statement — Conjunctivitis occurs every year around the monsoon, but this year it appears to be a major epidemic, the worst in four years.  Courses of Action — I. Take precautionary measures every four years to check the epidemic. II. Advise people …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The pattern described is seasonal (monsoon-linked) with an unusually severe episode this year. Precautions should be continuous during the risk season, not artificially tied to a four-year cycle. Public health advice should target hygiene behaviors that reduce transmission risk.Given Data / Assumptions:Seasonality: monsoon periods see recurring cases.Severity: current year is a major epidemic after four years.COA I: schedule precautions only every four years.COA II: promote boiled/drinking safe water and hygiene during monsoon.Concept / Approach:COA I is illogical: the disease risk recurs annually; prevention must be seasonal and continuous (hand/eye hygiene, avoiding sharing towels/cosmetics, surface disinfection, safe water). COA II is sensible; while conjunctivitis transmits primarily via contact, overall monsoon hygiene (including safe water) correlates with reduced concurrent infections and promotes general outbreak control practices.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Recognize annual risk → reject “every four years.”2) Endorse seasonal hygiene advisories (II) as broadly preventive.3) Conclude only II follows.Verification / Alternative check:Even if intensity spikes every few years, baseline annual precautions remain rational; therefore I does not follow.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I/Either/Both: misreads periodicity.Neither: dismisses an obviously useful public-health advisory (II).Common Pitfalls:Confusing episodic peaks with the need for only episodic precautions.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 4

Statement — A committee has criticized the institute for failing to implement many regular programs despite higher staff strength and for not drawing up a firm action plan for studies and research.  Courses of Action — I. Redefine the institute’s br…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The criticism points to two gaps: lack of execution despite resources, and absence of a concrete plan. Suitable actions must address strategic clarity and accountability/diagnosis.Given Data / Assumptions:Symptom: programs unimplemented despite staff increase.Cause hints: unclear objectives; missing firm action plan.COA I: redefine objectives and craft a practical action plan.COA II: require a reasons report for non-implementation.Concept / Approach:COA I realigns mission → strategy → execution, producing clear priorities, timelines, budgets, and owners. COA II creates transparency, surfaces bottlenecks (procurement, approvals, skills), and enables corrective actions. Both are necessary and complementary—diagnosis feeds redesign, and redesigned plans guide future execution.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Demand an explanatory report (II) to learn causes.2) Use findings to redefine objectives and draft a practical plan (I).3) Conclude both follow.Verification / Alternative check:Either action alone is weaker: planning without diagnosis repeats errors; diagnosis without plan leaves inertia intact.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: incomplete remediation path.Neither: ignores both accountability and planning deficits.Common Pitfalls:Confusing staff count with capacity; execution requires clarity and governance loops.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 5

Statement — Many pilgrims died in a stampede while boarding a private ferry to the holy place on the first day of a ten-day festival.  Courses of Action — I. Immediately cancel the licenses of all private ferry operators. II. Deploy adequate Governm…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A tragic crowd disaster calls for targeted safety measures and improved crowd/traffic management, not blanket punitive actions that could cripple essential transport capacity during a festival surge.Given Data / Assumptions:Event: stampede at a private ferry point; fatalities occurred.COA I: cancel all private ferry licenses immediately.COA II: deploy adequate personnel for guidance, queueing, and safety.Concept / Approach:COA II directly addresses safe boarding, lane discipline, load limits, emergency response, and communication. COA I is over-broad and counterproductive; it could remove capacity when demand peaks, pushing crowds to fewer access points and increasing risk. Proper action is stricter regulation, inspections, route management, caps per vessel, and on-site oversight—not total license cancellation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Ensure immediate crowd and voyage safety via deployment (II).2) Complement with targeted enforcement and audits (implicit under II).3) Reject blanket cancellations (I) as impractical and harmful.Verification / Alternative check:Comparable events are managed by strengthening standard operating procedures, not eliminating entire operator classes.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both: ignores the mobility need and creates new hazards.Neither: overlooks essential safety deployment.Common Pitfalls:Letting outrage drive sweeping bans instead of improving controls at chokepoints.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 6

Statement — Some students of a local college were caught traveling on a train without valid tickets.  Courses of Action — I. Inform their parents and request them to counsel their wards. II. Put these students behind bars for traveling without bona …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Fare evasion is an offense typically addressed by penalties, education, and parental/guardian involvement for students. Criminal incarceration is disproportionate for a first-time ticketless travel incident unless other serious offenses are involved.Given Data / Assumptions:Incident: students caught without tickets.COA I: notify parents for counseling and ensure future compliance.COA II: imprison the students.Concept / Approach:COA I aligns with restorative responses—fine/penalty as per railway rules plus parental counseling. COA II is excessive and not implied by the statement; carceral measures would be unjustified and administratively costly relative to the infraction.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Apply proportionate corrective measures (I) alongside standard penalties.2) Reject imprisonment (II) in absence of aggravating factors.Verification / Alternative check:Railway enforcement norms usually provide for on-the-spot fines/compounding and documentation; jail is not standard for simple fare evasion.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: disproportionate and counterproductive.Neither: ignores a sensible corrective (I).Common Pitfalls:Confusing deterrence with harshness; proportionality matters.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 7

Statement — The 1990 World Conference on “Education for All” endorsed a framework of action to meet basic learning needs of all children.  Courses of Action — I. India should suitably implement the action points of this conference. II. India should …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement cites a global framework already agreed upon. The logical next step is domestication and implementation, not re-hosting the event.Given Data / Assumptions:Outcome: a framework of action exists.COA I: implement relevant action points nationally.COA II: immediately organize a similar conference in India.Concept / Approach:COA I is the obvious follow-through—curricular reforms, access/retention, teacher development, measurement, and inclusion. COA II adds little; convening another conference does not substitute for implementation and is not implied by the statement.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Translate framework → national plan and execution (I).2) Reject II as redundant at this stage.Verification / Alternative check:Implementation can proceed using existing documents and bilateral cooperation; no new conference is necessary to begin.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: confuses deliberation with action.Neither: ignores a clear, actionable path (I).Common Pitfalls:Overvaluing meetings relative to execution.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 8

Statement — The chairman stressed the need for a more flexible education system and regretted that the curriculum has not been revised in pace with ongoing changes.  Courses of Action — I. Review and revise the curriculum periodically. II. Make the …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement contains two critiques: curriculum obsolescence and systemic inflexibility. Logical actions address each critique directly.Given Data / Assumptions:Gap 1: curriculum not revised with changing needs.Gap 2: rigid system (paths, assessments, credit transfer).COA I: periodic curriculum review/revision cycles.COA II: systemic flexibility (modular credits, electives, stackable learning).Concept / Approach:COA I targets content freshness; COA II targets structural adaptability. Both are necessary to meet the chairman’s concerns. Updating syllabi without flexibility still constrains learning; flexibility without relevant content remains hollow.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Institute review boards and employer advisory panels (I).2) Enable flexible pathways and credit mobility (II).3) Conclude both follow.Verification / Alternative check:Many modern systems adopt both levers; one without the other yields limited gains.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: incomplete relative to dual critique.Neither: contradicts the stated need.Common Pitfalls:Confusing content revision with structural reform—they are complementary.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 9

Statement — Vitamins and minerals in vegetables and fruits are beneficial for the human body; medicines do not have the same effect.  Courses of Action — I. Encourage people to take fresh fruits and vegetables to meet the body’s vitamin and mineral …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The statement favors whole-food sources of micronutrients over pills, implying diet-first guidance. A logical response promotes healthy consumption rather than prohibition of alternatives that some individuals medically need.Given Data / Assumptions:Premise: fruits/vegetables provide vitamins/minerals beneficially.COA I: encourage dietary intake.COA II: ban supplement medicines.Concept / Approach:COA I directly aligns with the statement: education, access, affordability, and food programs that increase produce consumption. COA II overreaches; supplements may be necessary for deficiencies or clinical needs. The premise does not justify an outright ban, only a preference for dietary sources.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Promote diet-based micronutrient sufficiency (I).2) Reject bans (II) that could harm patients with specific deficiencies.Verification / Alternative check:A policy can emphasize whole foods while regulating supplement claims and quality; banning is unnecessary and risky.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: confuses preference with prohibition.Neither: ignores the clear diet-first guidance.Common Pitfalls:Turning comparative statements into absolute bans.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 10

Statement — Road accidents are increasing constantly, particularly in urban areas.  Courses of Action — I. Urban Transport Authorities should impose stringent vehicle-maintenance norms. II. Traffic police should severely punish those who violate tra…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Urban accident surges usually arise from multiple factors: poor vehicle condition, reckless driving, weak enforcement, and infrastructure stress. Effective action requires both safer machines and safer behavior.Given Data / Assumptions:Problem: rising urban road accidents.COA I: stricter maintenance norms (brakes, tires, lights, emissions, fitness tests).COA II: stricter enforcement and penalties for violations (speeding, red-light jumping, drunk driving, phone use).Concept / Approach:COA I reduces mechanical failure risk and keeps unfit vehicles off roads. COA II changes driver incentives and behavior through deterrence. The problem is multifactorial; both supply-side (vehicle fitness) and demand-side (driver compliance) levers are necessary and complementary.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Enforce periodic fitness checks and roadside inspections (I).2) Intensify rule enforcement with technology (ANPR, e-challans), graded fines, and license points (II).3) Conclude: both follow to address distinct causal channels.Verification / Alternative check:Jurisdictions that improved both vehicle standards and enforcement saw accident declines; either action alone is insufficient.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: one-sided response to a multi-cause issue.Neither: rejects obvious, standard safety levers.Common Pitfalls:Assuming infrastructure fixes alone suffice; enforcement and maintenance are core pillars.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 11

Statement — Despite good economic progress of the country, a significant number of under-nourished children are observed in rural areas. Courses of Action: I. The Government should increase Wealth Tax/Income Tax and use the proceeds for upliftment o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Under-nutrition among rural children persists even when macroeconomic indicators look healthy. Course-of-Action questions ask which responses are practical, targeted, and capable of addressing root causes. Here we compare a broad revenue measure (I) versus targeted social interventions (II).Given Data / Assumptions:There is documented under-nutrition among rural children.I: Raise Wealth/Income Tax to fund upliftment.II: Provide free meals in primary schools and make primary education compulsory.Concept / Approach:Sound actions should be specific, feasible, and closely tied to the problem. Mid-day meals and compulsory schooling reduce hunger directly and improve attendance, creating a reliable delivery channel for nutrition, deworming, micronutrients, and health education. Broad tax hikes are policy choices but are neither necessary nor sufficient by themselves; earmarking, leakage, and implementation pathways remain unspecified.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Identify bottlenecks: access to food during school hours, irregular attendance, poverty constraints.2) Map II to bottlenecks: free meals directly reduce hunger; compulsory schooling increases coverage and consistency.3) Evaluate I: revenue raising is indirect and contingent on separate program design; it does not, by itself, ensure nutritional outcomes.Verification / Alternative check:Global experience shows school meal programs and compulsory primary education improve nutritional and educational outcomes when properly implemented. Financing may come from multiple sources, not necessarily a new tax hike.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I follows: too indirect. Either/Both: treats I as equally necessary though it is not. Neither: ignores a strong, targeted intervention in II.Common Pitfalls:Assuming more revenue automatically yields better outcomes without specifying delivery mechanisms.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 12

Statement — There has been a spurt of robbery and house-breaking incidents in one locality during the past fortnight. Courses of Action: I. Local police personnel should start patrolling the locality at regular intervals. II. Residents should be ask…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A sudden rise in robberies requires proportionate, constitutional responses that deter offenders without unreasonably burdening citizens. We compare preventive policing (I) with a de-facto curfew request to residents (II).Given Data / Assumptions:Incidents are concentrated in a locality and time-window.I: Regular police patrols.II: Advise residents not to leave homes at night.Concept / Approach:Effective courses of action should be feasible, rights-respecting, and targeted at offenders. Patrols increase police visibility, reduce response time, and deter crime. Asking residents to stay indoors shifts burden to victims, harms livelihoods, and is impractical and unenforceable as a general rule.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Map causes: offender opportunity at low-visibility hours.2) Apply I: patrols, checkpoints, lighting audits, community watch → immediate deterrence.3) Reject II: overbroad, disrupts normal life, not a proportionate measure.Verification / Alternative check:Standard policing doctrine favors hotspot patrols and intelligence-led operations over blanket stay-home advisories.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: elevate a burdensome measure. Neither: ignores a valid policing response in I.Common Pitfalls:Blaming victims or constraining their movement rather than constraining offenders.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 13

Statement — The college principal ordered that all students must strictly adhere to the dress code stipulated in the admission brochure. Courses of Action: I. Students found violating the dress code should be terminated from the college. II. Student…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Discipline policies should be fair, educative, and proportionate. Dress-code enforcement should escalate sanctions, beginning with warnings for first offences rather than immediate expulsion.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Terminate violators.II: Reprimand and warn first-time violators.Concept / Approach:Proportionality and natural justice suggest progressive discipline. Termination for a first infraction is excessive, risks due-process concerns, and undermines educational goals. A reprimand and warning realign behavior with policy at minimal cost.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Establish policy clarity: brochure already stipulates code.2) Apply graduated response: warning → repeat offence penalties.3) Reserve severe penalties for chronic or egregious violations.Verification / Alternative check:Most institutional conduct codes employ progressive sanctions.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I/Both/Either: disproportionate; Neither: ignores a reasonable first-step response.Common Pitfalls:Assuming punitive maximums are optimal deterrents for minor infractions.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 14

Statement — Railways will repair the main tracks within the city on the coming Sunday and will suspend operations for the whole day. Courses of Action: I. Railway authorities should issue public notifications well in advance to minimize passenger in…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Planned maintenance with full-day suspension requires demand management and service reconfiguration. Good practice includes early, multi-channel notifications and operational adjustments to prevent gridlock near blocked sections.Given Data / Assumptions:Full-day suspension on city tracks.I: Advance, wide-reach communication.II: Short-terminate long-distance trains before the blocked segment.Concept / Approach:Information (I) allows passengers to reschedule or use alternatives. Short-termination (II) prevents trains from bottling up at dead ends, enables bus bridging or alternate routes, and protects work blocks. Both measures directly mitigate the operational and passenger impact.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Publish notices via websites, apps, stations, media.2) Replan train paths: terminate outside limits; provide shuttle/bus links where feasible.3) Coordinate with city transport for last-mile support.Verification / Alternative check:Railways worldwide use planned blocks with pre-announced diversions/terminations.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: incomplete. Neither: ignores essential passenger and operations management.Common Pitfalls:Assuming notices alone suffice without reconfiguring train operations.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 15

Statement — Despite child-labour laws, children are frequently seen working in hotels, shops, and houses. Courses of Action: I. The Government should not make such laws which cannot be enforced. II. A proper primary-education system, particularly ta…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Child labour continues despite legal prohibitions. Sound actions should improve compliance and tackle root causes—poverty, lack of schooling, and demand for cheap labour—rather than discarding protective laws.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Refrain from making hard-to-enforce laws.II: Strengthen primary education, especially for marginalized groups.Concept / Approach:Protective legislation sets norms and tools for enforcement; poor implementation does not justify repeal. Education expands opportunities, reduces supply of child labour, and provides a monitoring channel (teachers/social workers).Step-by-Step Solution:1) Retain/improve laws; enhance enforcement and incentives.2) Implement II: free schooling, mid-day meals, stipends, community outreach.3) Pair with inspections and penalties on employers.Verification / Alternative check:Countries that reduced child labour combined strict laws with schooling incentives.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Either/Both: undermines child rights. Neither: ignores the role of education.Common Pitfalls:Assuming unenforced laws are useless; they need better design/enforcement, not abandonment.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 16

Statement — School dropout rate is very high in rural areas because children support their parents in income-earning activities. Courses of Action: I. Immediately expand public awareness programmes on primary education to educate parents. II. Provid…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:When child labour substitutes for household income, moral suasion alone rarely suffices; families need both awareness and economic alternatives. Effective remedies combine demand-side incentives with supply-side information and access.Given Data / Assumptions:Children drop out to earn.I: Awareness among parents about the value of primary education.II: Compensation/conditional support to offset lost income.Concept / Approach:Awareness (I) can change preferences, but cash/food transfers, scholarships, or workfare (II) compensate opportunity costs, making school attendance feasible. Together they address both beliefs and budget constraints.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Run village campaigns on long-term returns to schooling.2) Offer stipends/mid-day meals/conditional cash transfers to enrolled students.3) Monitor attendance and outcomes via school committees.Verification / Alternative check:Conditional incentives plus awareness have improved enrolment/retention in multiple contexts.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: partial fix; Neither: ignores both constraints.Common Pitfalls:Overreliance on messaging without reducing economic pressure on households.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 17

Statement — A large part of the locality was flooded because the main pipe supplying drinking water burst while utility-company workers were laying cables. Courses of Action: I. The civic authority should immediately repair the damage and stop water…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:An excavation-related burst of a water main caused flooding and wastage. Sound actions involve emergency containment and accountability for damages.Given Data / Assumptions:Cable-laying coincided with the burst.I: Immediate repair to prevent further loss.II: Seek explanation/compensation from the utility contractor.Concept / Approach:Action I restores essential service and prevents property damage. Action II enforces due diligence, recovers public losses, and incentivizes safer excavation protocols (utility maps, permits, supervision).Step-by-Step Solution:1) Isolate segment, stop flow, pump out water.2) Repair/replace damaged section; test pressure/quality.3) Investigate contractor lapses; recover costs; revise SOPs.Verification / Alternative check:Public works best practice: emergency response plus post-incident accountability.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: incomplete response; Neither: ignores both urgent and systemic needs.Common Pitfalls:Stopping at repairs without learning/cost recovery.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 18

Statement — The army has been alerted in the district following floods triggered by incessant rains. Courses of Action: I. Arrange relief for flood-affected people. II. Arrange supply of essential flood-relief articles. III. Arrange adequate medical…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Flood activation automatically triggers relief, logistics, and medical responses. All three proposed actions are core components of disaster management.Given Data / Assumptions:Floods have occurred; army is on alert.I: Relief (evacuation, shelter, food).II: Essential supplies (water, blankets, hygiene kits).III: Medical care (first aid, disease prevention).Concept / Approach:Comprehensive flood response addresses immediate survival, sustenance, and health risks (injury, diarrhoeal disease, leptospirosis, vector-borne illness).Step-by-Step Solution:1) Evacuate and shelter affected populations.2) Distribute essential goods and safe drinking water.3) Deploy medical teams and preventive measures (chlorination, vaccination as indicated).Verification / Alternative check:Standard disaster-management protocols include all three.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Single/partial actions omit necessary pillars of response.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring public-health risks that follow flooding.Final Answer:All follow.

Question 19

Statement — Over 27,000 bonded labourers identified and freed are still awaiting rehabilitation. Courses of Action: I. Identify more cases of bonded labour. II. Do not free bonded labourers until proper rehabilitation facilities are available. III. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:The core problem is inadequate rehabilitation after liberation. Effective action should unblock rehabilitation rather than pause rescues or divert effort.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Identify more bonded labourers.II: Delay freedom until rehab exists.III: Remove barriers to speedy, proper rehabilitation.Concept / Approach:Human-rights imperatives require immediate release from bondage; withholding freedom (II) is unethical and unlawful. Identifying more cases (I) is important, but the statement’s bottleneck is rehabilitation; adding cases without fixing the pipeline worsens backlog. The decisive action is III—streamline procedures, funding, skill training, land/credit support, and documentation.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Map rehab workflow; find delays (verification, funds, land, IDs).2) Create single-window clearance and monitoring.3) Provide skill/placement support and social protection.Verification / Alternative check:Successful anti-bonded-labour programs emphasize swift, properly funded rehabilitation.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I: adds load without fix. II: violates rights. D: wrongly includes II.Common Pitfalls:Confusing scale-up with effectiveness; throughput matters.Final Answer:Only III follows.

Question 20

Statement — Higher disposal costs encourage waste producers to seek cheaper ways to get rid of waste. Courses of Action: I. Increase disposal costs further. II. Bring down disposal costs. III. Set up a committee to study the details and recommend me…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:When disposal costs rise, illegal dumping or evasion becomes attractive. Sound actions should reduce incentives to cheat and design systems that ensure compliance at reasonable cost.Given Data / Assumptions:I: Raise costs higher.II: Reduce disposal costs.III: Study details and propose comprehensive measures.Concept / Approach:Further hikes (I) likely magnify evasion. Lowering costs (II) and improving convenience (door-to-door collection, pay-as-you-throw with caps, producer responsibility) can improve compliance. A committee (III) can calibrate fees, enforcement, and infrastructure (transfer stations, MRFs, tracking) based on data.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Diagnose elasticity of illegal dumping to fee levels.2) Reduce fees to a compliance-friendly level; increase monitoring/penalties for illegal disposal.3) Commission a study to optimize pricing, routes, and technology (GPS tracking, manifests).Verification / Alternative check:Many cities use modest fees with strict enforcement to balance cost recovery and compliance.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I: counterproductive. Either: pretends symmetrically valid choices; data suggest the opposite. Neither: ignores the problem.Common Pitfalls:Assuming higher price always improves outcomes; here it worsens evasion.Final Answer:Both II and III follow.

Course of Action Questions

Questions

Practice smarter