Question 1

Statement: Ten coaches of a passenger train have derailed, blocking both up and down tracks. Courses of Action: I. Immediately send men and equipment to clear the tracks. II. Divert trains running in both directions via alternative routes.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A derailment blocking both pairs of tracks halts traffic and risks cascading delays. Immediate engineering response and traffic management are both necessary.Given Data / Assumptions:Both directions blocked at the site.Alternative routes exist for at least some trains.Clearing requires heavy equipment and time.Concept / Approach:I restores capacity at the incident site. II reduces network congestion and passenger hardship during clearance operations.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Mobilise cranes, rescue, track repair teams; secure the area and treat the injured.2) Reroute/divert trains; issue passenger advisories and dynamic rescheduling.3) After clearance, conduct safety inspection before reopening.Verification / Alternative check:Combined action minimises disruption; doing only one is insufficient.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: undervalues complementarity; Neither: ignores urgency.Common Pitfalls:Poor passenger communication; inadequate crowd management at junctions.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 2

Statement: Water levels in all lakes supplying the city have dropped significantly. Courses of Action: I. Impose partial cuts/rationing in municipal supply to manage scarcity. II. Appeal through mass media for minimal, responsible water use by resid…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Falling reservoir levels call for demand management and public cooperation to avoid severe shortages.Given Data / Assumptions:Drop is citywide across sources.Short-term inflows are uncertain.Authorities can ration and run awareness drives.Concept / Approach:I smooths consumption to extend available stock; II mobilises citizen conservation (fix leaks, reuse greywater, reduce non-essential uses).Step-by-Step Solution:1) Implement equitable rationing schedules and tanker support for low-pressure areas.2) Launch conservation campaign; incentivise low-flow fixtures.3) Parallel supply augmentation (borewell regulation, treated wastewater for non-potable needs).Verification / Alternative check:Combined measures reduce demand and stretch supply until recharge.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either: weaker than coordinated action; Neither: ignores the crisis.Common Pitfalls:Inequitable cuts; poor tanker scheduling.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 3

Statement: There is an unprecedented rise in berth requests for long-distance trains during the current holiday season. Courses of Action: I. Immediately attach additional coaches to these trains to increase capacity. II. Advise people to plan trave…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Seasonal demand spikes are predictable. The railways can expand capacity tactically; advising passengers to defer travel is not a service-oriented solution.Given Data / Assumptions:Holiday peak demand now, not later.Railways can add coaches subject to rake length/platform constraints.Passenger plans are often date-bound.Concept / Approach:I improves availability immediately via additional coaches or special trains. II ignores service expectations and is impractical.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Deploy extra coaches/specials on high-demand corridors; dynamic waitlist management.2) Coordinate platform and rake schedules to handle longer formations.3) Communicate added capacity via app/website.Verification / Alternative check:Capacity addition aligns with public utility mandate; deferring travel is not relief.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only II/Either/Both: II is not a remedy.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring safety limits on rake length; inadequate onboard services for added coaches.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 4

Statement: Two morning walkers were killed by unidentified miscreants near the joggers’ park. Courses of Action: I. Deploy police personnel around the park during early morning hours. II. Advise residents to walk in groups for added safety.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Targeted attacks in public spaces demand both enforcement and community risk-reduction. Deterrence plus collective vigilance lowers repeat risk.Given Data / Assumptions:Crimes occurred in early hours with low footfall.Police presence deters offenders and improves response time.Walking in groups reduces vulnerability of isolated individuals.Concept / Approach:I provides immediate deterrence and rapid response capability. II is a situational awareness measure for citizens until the threat profile normalises.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Increase patrols/CCTV near park entries/routes; improve lighting.2) Community advisories: walk in groups, carry phones/whistles, report suspicious activity.3) Investigate to identify perpetrators; adjust deployment based on intel.Verification / Alternative check:Combined measures are standard until apprehensions are made.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I/Only II/Either individually is weaker; Neither disregards escalating risk.Common Pitfalls:Short-lived deployments; neglecting lighting/CCTV.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 5

Statement: A huge tidal wave has swept away many fishing boats and hutments along the coastline. Courses of Action: I. Restrain fishermen from constructing huts along the coastline henceforth. II. Send officials to assess damage and suggest remedial…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Coastal hazards require risk-informed planning, relief, and resilient rebuilding. An unqualified blanket restraint on coastal housing is overbroad; zoning and safe-setback policies are better instruments.Given Data / Assumptions:Severe damage to boats and homes.Immediate needs: rescue, relief, assessment, and rehabilitation.Long-term: resilient siting and construction guidance.Concept / Approach:II is essential: assess losses, provide relief/compensation, and propose mitigation (early warning, engineered shelters, safe setbacks). I, as phrased, is an outright restraint without nuance; better is regulated, resilient construction beyond hazard lines, not a total ban.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Rapid damage assessment; release relief and repair grants.2) Map hazard zones; define no-build and safe-build areas with elevated structures.3) Restore livelihoods (boat repair, nets) and strengthen early-warning systems.Verification / Alternative check:Assessment underpins targeted relief and smarter rebuilding; blanket bans can harm livelihoods and spur informal settlements.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I is too absolute; proper policy is risk-based zoning, not prohibiting all coastal habitation.Common Pitfalls:One-size-fits-all restrictions; delayed compensation.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 6

Statement: A large number of vernacular-medium students have not passed the Xth standard final examination. Courses of Action: I. The Government should immediately review the situation and initiate measures to improve outcomes. II. Issue notices to …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Poor outcomes concentrated in a segment suggest systemic issues (curricular alignment, teacher support, resources). A thoughtful review and targeted interventions are appropriate.Given Data / Assumptions:Failure disproportionately affects vernacular-medium schools.Root causes may include materials, training, assessment mismatch, or socio-economic factors.“Notices to all teachers” risks blame without diagnosis.Concept / Approach:I enables data-driven remediation (bridge courses, teacher training, revised materials, language support). II is blanket admonition lacking specificity and may demotivate staff.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Diagnostic testing to map learning gaps.2) Provide targeted academic support and teacher development.3) Monitor with formative assessments; adjust curricula accordingly.Verification / Alternative check:Targeted support correlates with improved pass rates more than punitive notices.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II is non-specific and punitive; effectiveness is doubtful.Common Pitfalls:One-off workshops without mentoring; ignoring language-transition issues.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 7

Statement: Researchers are agitated because libraries cannot deliver the right information to the right users at the right time in the required format; users are also unaware of available services. Courses of Action: I. Computerise library holdings …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Service latency and user unawareness point to process and capability gaps. Technology plus human capacity-building is the standard remedy.Given Data / Assumptions:Catalogues and circulation may be manual or fragmented.Staff require digital skills to exploit new systems.Users need orientation to discover services (databases, interlibrary loans).Concept / Approach:I digitises catalogues (OPAC), enables federated search and faster fulfilment. II ensures staff can operate systems and that users know how to access services efficiently.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Implement integrated library systems; digitise metadata/holdings.2) Train staff; set SLAs for requests; provide online guides.3) Conduct user workshops; measure satisfaction/turnaround times.Verification / Alternative check:Libraries that combine tech and training see reduced search and delivery times.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Only I or II alone leaves a capability or awareness gap.Common Pitfalls:Poor metadata quality; no user education.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 8

Statement: Many invitees at a marriage function suffered food poisoning and were rushed to nearby hospitals. Courses of Action: I. The Government should ban such marriage functions till further notice. II. The local hospitals should be advised to pr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Acute food poisoning is a public-health incident requiring prompt clinical response and investigation. Banning all marriage functions is disproportionate and impractical.Given Data / Assumptions:Incident is linked to one function/caterer.Hospitals are within reach.Authorities can inspect and penalise violators.Concept / Approach:II addresses immediate treatment needs; parallel actions (not in options) include sample testing, caterer inspection, and penalties. I imposes a blanket ban unrelated to specific culpability.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Alert hospitals for surge capacity (fluids, antibiotics if indicated).2) Collect food samples; trace caterer and kitchen hygiene lapses.3) Issue advisories to event organisers/vendors on compliance.Verification / Alternative check:Clinical support saves lives; bans are overreach and harm livelihoods.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I is excessive; “Either/Both” wrongly legitimise it.Common Pitfalls:Delayed sample collection; poor follow-up on offenders.Final Answer:Only II follows.

Question 9

Statement: Several schoolchildren have died recently in incidents attributed to poor maintenance of school buses. Courses of Action: I. Set up an expert group to inspect school buses and recommend safety measures. II. Suspend licences of all school …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Tragic incidents linked to maintenance failures demand rigorous inspection and enforcement, but measures must avoid paralysing essential school transport without a plan.Given Data / Assumptions:Deaths tied to bus maintenance lapses.Large fleet across many schools.Regulatory bodies can mandate checks.Concept / Approach:I establishes expert-led inspections and standards (brakes, tyres, lights, emergency exits, driver vetting), leading to targeted actions. II’s blanket suspension, if immediate and universal, disrupts schooling and may be logistically impossible; instead, phased checks with immediate sidelining of failed vehicles is better.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Create inspection protocol; prioritise older/high-mileage buses.2) Enforce “fail=off-road” until rectified; mandate maintenance logs.3) Train drivers/attendants; emergency drills for students.Verification / Alternative check:Expert inspections improve safety swiftly; blanket suspensions backfire without alternative transport.Why Other Options Are Wrong:II is excessive as phrased; proportional enforcement is preferred.Common Pitfalls:Token checks; poor record-keeping.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 10

Statement: A majority of students have failed in one paper in the first-semester examination. Courses of Action: I. Ask all failed students to drop out of the course. II. Ask the faculty teaching that paper to resign.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:A widespread failure in a single paper suggests misalignment between teaching, assessment, and expected outcomes. Knee-jerk expulsions or resignations do not diagnose or solve the problem.Given Data / Assumptions:Failure is concentrated in one paper.Possible causes: ambiguous questions, unrealistic difficulty, curricular mismatch, inadequate teaching resources.Institutions have academic review mechanisms.Concept / Approach:Appropriate actions (not in options) include paper audit, moderation, supplementary assessment, and faculty support/training. Both I and II are punitive without investigation and harm student/faculty welfare.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Convene academic committee to review the paper and grading rubric.2) Offer remediation and, where justified, re-evaluation or supplementary exams.3) Align teaching plan, tutorials, and assessment for next term.Verification / Alternative check:Academic reviews often correct anomalies and improve outcomes without destructive measures.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I expels students indiscriminately; II penalises faculty without evidence.Common Pitfalls:Ignoring student feedback; failing to moderate assessments.Final Answer:Neither I nor II follows.

Question 11

Statement: The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) receives a complaint that an officer is taking a bribe to perform an official duty. Courses of Action: I. Arrange a trap to catch the officer red-handed and take strict action as per law. II. Wait…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:When a credible bribery complaint reaches an anti-corruption agency, the immediate question is whether to proactively verify and act (trap, recording, surveillance) or to delay action pending additional complaints. Public-interest, deterrence, and evidentiary standards guide the proper course of action.Given Data / Assumptions:There is a specific allegation of demand/acceptance of bribe by a public servant.CBI has legal tools to verify and prosecute (e.g., trap proceedings with independent witnesses).No contrary facts indicating a frivolous or anonymous, unverified tip are stated.Concept / Approach:The legally sound response is to verify promptly through a trap laid with due procedure. This both preserves perishable evidence (tainted currency, phenolphthalein test results, recordings) and prevents continuing harm. Waiting for “more complaints” does not strengthen a case as much as professionally collected primary evidence and risks alerting the accused or enabling more corruption episodes.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Assess prima facie credibility of the complainant and specifics (time, place, demanded amount).2) Plan a trap with independent panch witnesses; document and video/audio record where permissible.3) Execute arrest/recovery; register FIR; proceed per the Prevention of Corruption Act.Verification / Alternative check:Trap cases, properly documented, typically provide stronger, contemporaneous evidence than collating multiple delayed complaints with hearsay value.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Waiting for “more complaints” (II) delays justice, risks destruction of evidence, and is not necessary for legal sufficiency once a verifiable demand is recorded.Common Pitfalls:Acting without proper documentation or independent witnesses can weaken prosecution; conversely, inaction emboldens misconduct.Final Answer:Only I follows.

Question 12

Statement: At a railway level crossing, a bus collided with a running train; around fifty people died. Courses of Action: I. Immediately suspend the train driver. II. Try the bus driver in court for negligence. III. Ensure that all level crossings a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Level-crossing crashes often involve failure to heed signals, poor visibility, unmanned gates, or unsafe driving. Appropriate action targets accountability and systemic safety rather than reflex punishment without facts.Given Data / Assumptions:A moving train had right of way on tracks.A bus entered the crossing and collided, causing mass casualties.No evidence in the statement that the train driver violated protocol.Concept / Approach:Proceedings against the bus driver (II) for prima facie negligence (signal violation, gate breach, overspeed) are warranted, subject to investigation. Independently, improving infrastructure/operations by manning crossings (III) reduces recurrence—guards, barriers, alarms, and better sightlines mitigate human error.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Open investigation; collect CCTV, data logs, witness accounts.2) If negligence is indicated, file charges against the bus driver (II).3) Prioritize manning/conversion of unmanned crossings and grade separation in long term (III).Verification / Alternative check:Crash-reduction programs consistently show large risk drops after manning or grade separation; arbitrary suspension of compliant train drivers does not improve safety.Why Other Options Are Wrong:I (suspend the train driver) lacks basis; punishment must follow facts. D (All) wrongly includes I.Common Pitfalls:Blame-shifting without evidence; ignoring systemic fixes at hazardous crossings.Final Answer:Both II and III follow.

Question 13

Statement: During the recent festival season, the city saw a spurt in criminal activities. Courses of Action: I. Police should immediately investigate the causes of the surge. II. In future, police should take adequate precautions during festivals t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Festival peaks often draw crowds, cash, and mobility—raising opportunities for theft and disorder. Effective policing balances targeted enforcement and civil liberties.Given Data / Assumptions:Crimes surged specifically during festivals.Exact causes (patrol gaps, lighting, cash movement) are unknown.Concept / Approach:Investigating causes (I) allows data-led deployment (hotspots, timings, crime typology). Precautionary steps (II) include foot patrols, CCTV surges, crowd control, mobile courts, and public advisories. Blanket pre-emptive arrests (III) of “known criminals” absent specific threat intelligence are unlawful and counterproductive.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Analyze incident heat maps; audit beat plans (I).2) Create festival-time SOPs: checkpoints, rapid response, lighting fixes, cash-van escorts (II).3) Use lawful, targeted preventive actions only where credible inputs exist.Verification / Alternative check:Problem-oriented policing and event-based surge models reduce crime without civil-liberty violations.Why Other Options Are Wrong:III overreaches; All wrongly includes III; single-option choices ignore the complementary nature of I and II.Common Pitfalls:Equating “known criminal” lists with blanket detention authority.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 14

Statement: Along the Andhra coast, mass shrimp mortality has been reported in ponds due to a suspected virus. Courses of Action: I. Immediately test/treat affected pond water to identify the virus and parameters. II. Temporarily stop catching and se…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Aquaculture is highly sensitive to pathogens; early containment prevents spread across farms and markets. The statement indicates a likely viral agent causing mass die-offs, warranting immediate biosecurity steps.Given Data / Assumptions:Multiple ponds, same coastline, mortality spike.Etiology likely viral; confirmation pending.Concept / Approach:Laboratory diagnostics (I) guide response (quarantine, pond drying, liming, chlorination, stocking rest). Halting catches (II) from affected ponds blocks contaminated stock movement and reduces consumer risk. Vigilance advisories (III) empower early detection—aberrant swimming, color change, feed refusal—triggering rapid containment.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Collect samples; run PCR/bacterial panels; assess DO, ammonia, nitrite (I).2) Enforce pond-level quarantine; destroy carcasses safely; halt sales from affected ponds (II).3) Issue advisories, set up hotline; monitor neighboring ponds (III).Verification / Alternative check:Standard biosecurity recommends test–contain–communicate triad to limit aquaculture epizootics.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Partial actions leave gaps; “Only” answers ignore the multi-pronged need.Common Pitfalls:Harvesting stressed stock for quick sale; improper carcass disposal; restarting too early.Final Answer:All follow.

Question 15

Statement: Natural calamities are occurring more frequently now than five years ago. Courses of Action: I. Maintain always-ready disaster management action plans and capacities. II. Restrict/deny development activities that harm nature and worsen ha…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Higher hazard frequency/intensity requires preparedness, prevention, and science-based planning. The courses of action should address response capacity, risk drivers, and technical guidance.Given Data / Assumptions:Calamities are more frequent/recent.Policy levers include preparedness, regulation, and expertise.Concept / Approach:Readiness (I) covers early warnings, stockpiles, drills, inter-agency SOPs. Environmental safeguards (II) reduce exposure/vulnerability (wetland loss, floodplain encroachment, slope cutting). Expert panels (III) ensure hazard-specific planning (cyclones, floods, heatwaves, earthquakes) with updated risk maps and climate projections.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Institutionalize incident command, EOCs, and community volunteers (I).2) Enforce EIA, land-use zoning, and green buffers (II).3) Task a multidisciplinary panel to integrate science into SOPs and investments (III).Verification / Alternative check:Sendai Framework pillars echo preparedness, prevention, and knowledge use.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any subset omits a critical pillar.Common Pitfalls:Response-only mindset without prevention; committees without teeth.Final Answer:All follow.

Question 16

Statement: MBA institutes are mushrooming, and many graduating MBAs lack adequate quality. Courses of Action: I. Enforce stringent norms for approval and oversight of management institutes. II. Students should evaluate the market value and outcomes …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Education quality problems call for actions across regulators, consumers (students), and employers. Oversupply without standards dilutes outcomes and misallocates human capital.Given Data / Assumptions:Rapid institute growth; uneven quality.Students and recruiters face signal noise.Concept / Approach:Regulatory rigor (I) raises baseline standards (faculty ratios, curriculum, placements, audits). Informed student choice (II) aligns demand with quality. Employer discipline (III) reduces credential inflation, rewarding competence/role fit.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Tighten approvals, periodic accreditation (I).2) Publish outcomes; students compare ROI, pedagogy, alumni (II).3) Calibrate job requirements to real skill needs (III).Verification / Alternative check:Markets with transparent quality signals self-correct faster alongside regulation.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Partial measures fix only parts of the failure.Common Pitfalls:Overreliance on brand names; ignoring program-level outcomes.Final Answer:All follow.

Question 17

Statement: Many school/college students score high but fail to truly master subjects. Courses of Action: I. Boards should re-examine and revise examinations to detect real understanding. II. Design assessments to discourage rote learning and reward …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Grade inflation and rote-friendly testing can mask weak conceptual grasp. Remedies should realign assessments with competencies rather than simply increasing difficulty.Given Data / Assumptions:High scores coexist with poor mastery.Assessment design likely rewards recall over reasoning.Concept / Approach:Reforms (I, II) include competency blueprints, multi-step items, practicals, and open-ended prompts. Simply making papers “significantly harder” (III) may raise failure rates without measuring deeper skills and can penalize equity.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Audit item banks for cognitive levels (I).2) Introduce application/analysis tasks; curb predictability (II).3) Provide teacher training and exemplar rubrics.Verification / Alternative check:Competency-based assessment literature supports shifts from recall to application for genuine learning.Why Other Options Are Wrong:III confuses difficulty with validity.Common Pitfalls:Overweighting trick questions; ignoring formative feedback.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 18

Statement: Asthma cases are rising, especially in large cities. Courses of Action: I. Civic bodies should ensure adequate supply of asthma medicines at reasonable prices. II. Authorities should control vehicular emissions and urban air pollution rig…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Asthma prevalence correlates with air pollutants (PM, NOx, ozone) and loss of urban green buffers. Long-term mitigation targets sources, while health-system measures address acute needs.Given Data / Assumptions:City air quality is a major driver of asthma.Green cover moderates particulates and heat islands.Concept / Approach:Source control (II) is foundational: inspection/maintenance of vehicles, fuel standards, congestion management, dust control. Protecting trees (III) sustains absorption and microclimate benefits. While medicine availability (I) helps patients, the civic authority’s primary lever is environmental control; pharmacies/hospitals typically manage supply.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Tighten emission norms and monitoring (II).2) Enforce tree-felling penalties; expand planting, protect roadside avenues (III).3) Coordinate with health departments for access to care.Verification / Alternative check:Pollution abatement policies consistently reduce respiratory morbidity; greening aids exposure reduction.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Choosing only II or only III is incomplete; focusing solely on medicines overlooks root causes.Common Pitfalls:Short-term fogging or episodic drives without structural emission control.Final Answer:Both II and III follow.

Question 19

Statement: A large number of students failed the SSC exam due to poor performance in the English paper. Courses of Action: I. Direct schools to appoint competent English teachers where needed. II. Send English teachers for government-conducted refre…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Low subject performance points to teaching quality, pedagogy, and support, not to paper “difficulty” per se. Sustainable action upgrades capacity rather than diluting standards.Given Data / Assumptions:Failure concentrated in one subject.Teacher capability gaps may exist.Concept / Approach:Quality hiring (I) and upskilling (II) address root causes—content mastery, classroom methods, assessment alignment. Lowering difficulty (III) is counterproductive and undermines credential credibility.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Audit staffing; recruit qualified teachers (I).2) Conduct refresher training with updated pedagogy and assessment practices (II).3) Provide remedial support and practice resources.Verification / Alternative check:Teacher professional development correlates with learning gains when paired with coaching.Why Other Options Are Wrong:III masks the problem; “None” ignores tangible remedies; single-option choices miss the complementary nature of I and II.Common Pitfalls:Short-term pass-rate fixes that erode standards.Final Answer:Both I and II follow.

Question 20

Statement: Every monsoon, several people drown while swimming in the sea at city beaches. Courses of Action: I. Deploy at least two trained lifeguards at each beach during the monsoon. II. Caution and educate beachgoers about monsoon risks via annou…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:Rough seas, rip currents, and poor visibility increase drowning risk in monsoon months. Layered risk controls—people, process, and signage—are standard.Given Data / Assumptions:Incidents recur annually.Beaches attract swimmers despite advisories.Concept / Approach:Lifeguards (I) provide rapid rescue and enforcement. Public cautioning (II) shifts behavior. Signage (III) provides persistent, location-specific warnings. Together, they reduce exposure and improve response times.Step-by-Step Solution:1) Staff trained lifeguards and rescue equipment (I).2) Use loudspeakers, patrols, and digital alerts (II).3) Place and maintain high-visibility signs at risk hotspots (III).Verification / Alternative check:Beach safety programs worldwide rely on this triad.Why Other Options Are Wrong:Pairwise options miss the comprehensive approach; “Only” options are inadequate.Common Pitfalls:Untrained volunteers without equipment; faded or poorly placed signage.Final Answer:All follow.

Course of Action Questions

Questions

Practice smarter