Question 1

In this course of action question, a car dealer observes tremendous response and long queues for bookings of a new XYZ car, with people complaining about business hours and arrangements. Based on this situation, which of the following suggested cour…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a course of action type question set in a business context. A car dealer has launched bookings for a new XYZ car, which has received a tremendous response. Long queues have formed and customers are complaining about business hours and the arrangements at the showroom. You must decide which course of action the dealer or management should reasonably take in response to this situation. Given Data / Assumptions: There is a very high response for bookings of the new XYZ car. Long queues of people have formed at the dealership. Customers are complaining about the duration of business hours and about the existing arrangements. Course of Action I: People should make their own arrangements for lunch and snacks and be ready to spend several hours in the queue. Course of Action II: The dealer should arrange more booking desks and increase business hours to serve more people in less time. The aim of a good course of action is to reduce the problem at its source, not to shift the burden to customers. Concept / Approach: In course of action questions, we look for steps that address the root cause of the problem, are practical, and are within the control of the concerned authority. Options that simply ask affected people to adjust without improving the system are usually considered weak actions. In this scenario, the core issues are inadequate booking counters and limited business hours relative to demand. Effective action should directly increase service capacity or improve organisation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Analyse course of action I. It tells customers to take care of their own food and be ready to wait for several hours. Step 2: This does not reduce the queue length, does not address the complaints about business hours, and accepts the long waiting time as normal. It simply shifts the burden of adjustment to the customers. Step 3: A good management response should aim to improve service rather than only asking customers to tolerate discomfort. Therefore course of action I is weak and should not be treated as logically following. Step 4: Now examine course of action II. It proposes increasing the number of booking desks and extending business hours to handle more customers efficiently. Step 5: This directly addresses the reasons for complaint: it can shorten queues, reduce waiting time, and provide more flexible booking times, thereby improving customer satisfaction. Step 6: Since the dealer has control over staffing, counters and business hours, this is a feasible and effective action that tackles the problem at its root. Verification / Alternative check: Consider the likely outcomes of each course of action. If only course I is followed, queues remain long, people stay frustrated, and the dealer risks damaging the reputation of the new car and of the showroom. If course II is followed, the system is upgraded: more counters and longer hours allow faster processing, which reduces complaints and improves the booking experience. Many standard reasoning questions in exams favour system improvement actions over mere advice to customers to endure inconvenience. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A selects only course of action I, which is not an appropriate managerial response. Option C claims that neither course follows, ignoring the clear need for organisational changes captured in course II. Option D selects both actions, but endorsing a weak and customer unfriendly action is not necessary when a strong alternative exists. Option E suggests that exactly one of the two (without specifying which) must follow, but the exam expects you to point out course of action II as the sensible and effective response. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to think that because customers are already in the queue, advising them to carry snacks is a helpful action that should be marked as following. However, from a logical and managerial point of view, that does not solve the underlying issue of inadequate arrangements. Another pitfall is to ignore feasibility: some students worry that adding booking desks or extending hours may be difficult, but in standard reasoning questions such organisational adjustments are considered practical and desirable when demand is high. Final Answer: The appropriate and logically supported response is that only course of action II follows from the situation described.

Question 2

Read the following statement and the suggested courses of action carefully, and then decide which course of action or combination of courses of action logically follows from the information given, assuming the statement is true even if it appears un…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This logical reasoning question on course of action is based on a situation where criminal activities suddenly increase during a festival season in a city. Such questions test your ability to identify practical, reasonable, and directly relevant responses that authorities should adopt. You must assume the statement is completely true and then judge which proposed courses of action are appropriate and logically follow from the given information. Given Data / Assumptions: There was a sudden spurt in criminal activities in the city. This increase in crime occurred during a recent festival season. The festival season is a recurring event, so similar situations may arise again in the future. The police are responsible for maintaining law and order. Known criminals exist within the city. Concept / Approach: In course of action questions, a proposed action follows logically only if it is: Practical and feasible. Directly related to the cause or effect in the statement. Likely to help solve, control, or prevent the problem. At the same time, a course of action that is extreme, unjustified, or violates basic principles (for example, arresting people without clear reason) generally does not follow from the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine course of action a. Investigating the causes of the sudden increase in crime is a logical and necessary first step. Without knowing the reasons, it is difficult to design effective preventive measures. This is directly related to the problem and is fully justified, so course of action a follows. Step 2: Examine course of action b. Since the crime increased during a festival season and festivals will occur again, the police must plan preventive measures for future festivals. Taking adequate precautions to avoid a recurrence is logical, proactive, and directly linked to the statement. Therefore, course of action b also follows. Step 3: Examine course of action c. Arresting all known criminals before every festival season is an extreme measure. The statement only says there was an increase in crime; it does not state that all known criminals were responsible. Arrest without specific evidence or fresh offences is not a justified or reasonable course of action. Step 4: Compare the options with the evaluation of a, b, and c. Since a and b follow but c does not, the correct option must be the one that includes both a and b and excludes c. Verification / Alternative check: A good way to verify is to ask whether each course of action could reasonably be recommended by a responsible authority in real life, based only on the information given. Investigating causes (a) and taking future precautions (b) are standard and reasonable responses for a police force facing a crime spike. Mass arrest of known criminals without fresh cause (c) would likely be considered a violation of rights and may not withstand legal or ethical scrutiny. Thus, our earlier evaluation is consistent and reasonable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only c follows: This is incorrect because c is extreme and not clearly justified, while a and b are both logical and necessary. Only a follows: This ignores the need for preventive measures in future festival seasons, so it is incomplete. Both b and c follow: This wrongly includes c, which is not a justified course of action, and it ignores the essential investigative step in a. Common Pitfalls: Many students think that any strict action against criminals must automatically be correct. However, in course of action questions you must consider legality, proportionality, and direct connection to the problem. Another common mistake is to select only immediate corrective steps (like investigation) and forget the need for longer term preventive planning, which is exactly what course of action b represents. Final Answer: Both a and b follow.

Question 3

Read the following situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which of them logically follows from the information given, assuming the statement is true.  Statement: Duty free technology parks, where foreign firms can manufacture…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question deals with a government proposal to create duty free technology parks for foreign firms to manufacture electronic hardware components. The main skill tested here is your ability to judge which suggested course of action logically follows from the given statement without adding extra assumptions that are not supported by the information. Given Data / Assumptions: Duty free technology parks are proposed to be set up in various places in the country. Foreign firms will be allowed to manufacture electronic hardware components in these parks. Products manufactured in such parks can potentially be exported and bring in foreign currency. There is a concern that foreign participation might affect indigenous production. Concept / Approach: In course of action problems, a course of action follows if it: Directly addresses the situation stated. Is reasonable and practically possible. Does not depend on assumptions that are too strong or not mentioned. We must evaluate each proposed course strictly on the basis of the information given, not on personal opinion or imagined extra facts. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine course of action I. If duty free technology parks are implemented, foreign firms can produce hardware components and export them. This can reasonably be expected to augment foreign currency reserves. Encouraging such implementation is consistent with the potential economic benefit mentioned. Therefore, course of action I logically follows from the proposal. Step 2: Examine course of action II. This suggests that the proposal should not be implemented because it will hinder indigenous production. However, the statement does not provide any information that indigenous manufacturers will necessarily suffer due to foreign firms. This effect is speculative and not directly supported by the text. Step 3: Determine whether II can be treated as a logical course. Since there is no data that indigenous firms will be harmed, saying that the government should not implement the proposal is based on an unproven fear rather than the given facts, so II does not logically follow. Step 4: Compare the options. We have concluded that I follows and II does not. Therefore, the option that states Only I follows must be the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: To verify, consider what would happen if the government implemented the parks. There is a clear link between increased exports and foreign currency reserves, which supports course of action I. On the other hand, even if there could be some competition with local industry, the statement does not mention any specific negative effect on indigenous producers. Without explicit information, stating that the proposal should not be implemented is not logically compelled by the problem statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II follows: This is incorrect because II is purely speculative and not supported by the given data. Neither I nor II follows: This ignores the clear economic logic that supports I. Both I and II follow: This is impossible, because I and II are contradictory recommendations and we have no basis for rejecting the proposal outright. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates are tempted to overvalue concerns about foreign firms hurting domestic industry and quickly accept II. However, course of action questions require you to stay within the limits of the given information. Unless the statement explicitly indicates a harmful impact on indigenous production, you cannot conclude that the proposal should be blocked. Another pitfall is to think that both contradictory courses can follow, which is logically inconsistent in this context. Final Answer: Only I follows.

Question 4

Read the following statement and proposed courses of action carefully, and then decide which of the courses of action logically follows, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: A large number of students who have passed their XII stan…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question presents a serious educational problem: many students who have passed the XII standard examination are unable to secure college admission because of inadequate seats. The objective is to test your judgment regarding which proposed courses of action are fair, practical, and directly address the root cause. You must carefully evaluate whether each suggested step is justified by the situation described. Given Data / Assumptions: A large number of students have passed the XII standard terminal examination. The number of college seats is much lower than the number of eligible students. Because of this mismatch, many qualified students cannot get admission. The government can influence education policy and may involve the private sector. Some families are rich enough to send their children abroad, while others are not. Concept / Approach: For course of action questions: A valid course of action should attempt to solve or reduce the problem. It should be fair, ethical, and system oriented rather than discriminatory. It must not create a worse injustice than the one it is trying to solve. The core cause here is inadequate college capacity, not the number of deserving students. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action a. Making the XII standard evaluation system more tough so that fewer students pass is a way of artificially reducing the number of qualified candidates. This punishes students by restricting opportunity instead of expanding educational infrastructure. It does not address the real issue of limited seats and is therefore not a logical solution. Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. Encouraging the private sector to open new colleges by providing land at cheaper rates directly tackles the core issue: insufficient seats. Increasing the number of colleges and thus seats is a practical, system level response. Therefore, b logically follows. Step 3: Evaluate course of action c. Asking rich people to send their children abroad is discriminatory and unrealistic. It assumes that all rich families will agree and that foreign education capacity is unlimited. It also shifts responsibility away from the government and system. Thus, c does not logically follow. Step 4: Combine the evaluations. Only course of action b properly addresses the problem in a fair and practical manner. Hence, the correct choice is the option that mentions only b. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the situation after implementing each course. If a is implemented, fewer students pass, but this simply hides the capacity problem rather than solving it. If c is implemented, only a small fraction of rich students might go abroad, leaving the basic mismatch unchanged. If b is implemented, capacity is increased and more qualified students get a chance to study. Clearly, only b provides a structural and just solution, confirming our earlier conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a and b follow: This incorrectly includes a, which is unfair and does not deal with the root cause. Only c follows: This ignores the main structural issue and is socially biased. All a, b and c follow: This wrongly treats all three as acceptable, even though a and c are not justified. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to think that limiting the number of pass candidates (as in a) is an easy way to balance demand and supply. However, in reasoning questions and in real policy, artificial restriction of success is not a sound approach. Another pitfall is to accept socially biased solutions like c because they seem to reduce pressure, but they are neither equitable nor systemic. Always focus on actions that genuinely improve the situation for the system as a whole. Final Answer: Only b follows.

Question 5

Read the following statement and courses of action carefully, and then decide which course of action logically follows from the statement, assuming it is completely true.  Statement: The government has decided not to provide financial support to vol…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question concerns voluntary organisations that will no longer receive financial support from the government in the next Five Year Plan. The statement clearly says that these organisations must now raise their own funds. You need to evaluate which of the suggested courses of action is a logical and generally acceptable response to this policy change, based only on the information given. Given Data / Assumptions: The government will stop financial support to voluntary organisations from the next Five Year Plan. Voluntary organisations have ongoing financial needs to support their activities. They must arrange funds from non government sources to survive and function. Foreign agencies are one possible source of funds but may involve additional conditions or regulations. Concept / Approach: A valid course of action must: Be directly related to the situation described. Be reasonable and not too restrictive or risky by default. Prefer general, flexible approaches over narrowly defined or speculative ones unless the statement clearly supports them. In this case, the central requirement is for voluntary organisations to find alternative funding sources. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Assess course of action I. Collaborating with foreign agencies is one possible way to obtain funds. However, the statement does not mention foreign agencies, nor does it confirm that such collaboration is always suitable, acceptable, or free from complications like foreign influence, regulatory restrictions, or dependency risks. Therefore, treating this as the necessary or definite course of action goes beyond the given information. Step 2: Assess course of action II. Exploring other sources of financial support is a broad and flexible recommendation that directly matches the requirement that organisations should raise their own funds. It does not limit them to any specific type of donor and allows them to consider local donors, corporate social responsibility programmes, community contributions, foreign funding where appropriate, and other ethical options. Step 3: Decide whether I logically follows. Since I is just one particular method among many and is not supported explicitly in the statement, we cannot say that all voluntary organisations should collaborate with foreign agencies. It may be suitable for some but cannot be treated as a universal logical course of action on the basis of the given statement. Step 4: Decide whether II logically follows. II is directly aligned with the core requirement that organisations must find alternative financial support. It is practical, general, and clearly supported by the situation. Hence, II follows. Verification / Alternative check: Verify by asking: if the government stops funding, what must every voluntary organisation definitely do? They must look for other ways to fund their work, which is exactly what II states. Do they necessarily need to collaborate with foreign agencies? No, some organisations may prefer local contributions, corporate partners, or member based funding. Therefore, I cannot be treated as a universally required course of action, while II clearly is. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I follows: Incorrect because foreign collaboration is only one specific possibility and is not mandated or implied as necessary by the statement. Neither I nor II follows: Incorrect because II is a natural and essential response to the loss of government funding. Both I and II follow: Incorrect because I is not logically compelled, while II is. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to treat any seemingly helpful step as automatically valid. In reasoning questions, you must ask whether the step is definitely necessary or at least clearly suggested by the statement. Another pitfall is to forget that overly specific courses of action, like mandatory collaboration with foreign agencies, may involve extra assumptions not given in the text, which makes them invalid as logical conclusions. Final Answer: Only II follows.

Question 6

Read the following experimental statement and the given courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows from the statement, assuming it is fully true.  Statement: Properly fed and starved monkeys were made to run through …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question, although placed under course of action, is conceptually similar to an assumptions problem. The statement describes an experiment on monkeys and then uses the result to support a claim about human intelligence and malnutrition in poor countries. You are asked to determine which of the given statements must be taken as true for the conclusion to make sense and therefore logically follows as an underlying assumption or necessary link. Given Data / Assumptions: Two groups of monkeys, properly fed and starved, were run through a puzzle like network of paths. The starved monkeys could not run faster than the properly fed monkeys. This observation is used to claim that people with lower intelligence in poor countries are victims of malnutrition. There is an implied link between nutrition and performance in a puzzle task. Concept / Approach: In such reasoning: We look for hidden assumptions necessary to move from the experimental result to the human conclusion. A valid assumption should connect the experiment on monkeys to the claim about humans. Statements that introduce unrelated ideas or extra information are not valid assumptions. The courses of action a and b here are really possible assumptions rather than actions, so we evaluate them accordingly. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the argument structure. The argument is: malnutrition reduced the performance of starved monkeys in a puzzle test, therefore human beings in poor countries who are malnourished have lower intelligence. This clearly compares monkey behaviour with human intelligence. Step 2: Evaluate statement a. It says that the effects of nutrition on the intelligence of monkeys are parallel to those on human beings. If this is not assumed, then we cannot use an experiment on monkeys to draw a conclusion about human intelligence. Therefore, for the conclusion regarding people in poor countries to be meaningful, this assumption must hold. So a logically follows as a necessary underlying assumption. Step 3: Evaluate statement b. It claims that captive monkeys are more intelligent than wild monkeys. This has nothing to do with the argument relating nutrition to performance in the puzzle or to intelligence in poor human populations. Whether monkeys are captive or wild does not affect the logic of moving from the experiment to the conclusion about humans. Step 4: Decide which statements follow. Since a is essential for the argument to be valid and b is irrelevant, only a follows. Verification / Alternative check: Try removing assumption a. If the effects of nutrition on monkeys and humans are not parallel, the entire comparison collapses, and the conclusion about people in poor countries becomes unjustified. On the other hand, even if b were false, that is, if captive monkeys were not more intelligent than wild ones, the experiment result and the human conclusion would remain unaffected. Hence, a is necessary while b is not, which confirms our evaluation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only b follows: Incorrect because b does not connect to the given conclusion and is unnecessary for the reasoning. Both a and b follow: Incorrect since b is unrelated to the claim about human intelligence and malnutrition. Neither a nor b follows: Incorrect because without a, the link from monkeys to humans cannot be established. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes treat every statement related to the experiment as a valid assumption. However, logical reasoning questions require that an assumption must be essential for the conclusion. Another common mistake is to overlook cross species generalisation. Any argument that moves from animal behaviour to human behaviour must assume some similarity in the effect of the key factor, which here is nutrition, on both species. Final Answer: Only a follows.

Question 7

Read the following situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: There has been a significant drop in the water level of all the lakes that …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question focuses on a civic problem: a significant drop in the water level in all lakes that provide water to a city. The goal is to evaluate which of the suggested actions would be logical, practical, and directly helpful in managing the situation. You must treat the statement as true and then decide which courses of action follow logically from it. Given Data / Assumptions: All lakes that supply water to the city have experienced a significant drop in water level. The city depends on these lakes for its regular water supply. If the situation is not controlled, a serious water shortage may occur. The water supply authority and the government can take policy decisions and communicate with citizens. Concept / Approach: For a course of action to follow, it should: Be directly related to the problem described. Help manage or reduce the negative impact. Be practical and implementable in the short or medium term. In a water shortage context, both supply side control and demand side management are commonly used tools. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. Imposing a partial cut in water supply is a classic supply side conservation measure. When reservoir levels fall, authorities frequently reduce supply so that the remaining water lasts longer. This action is directly linked to the problem and is reasonable in an emergency. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Appealing to residents through mass media to minimise use of water is a demand side management step. If citizens cooperate by reducing wastage, the city can stretch its limited water resources further. This is again a logical and necessary action in such a situation. Step 3: Determine if both can follow together. There is no contradiction between I and II. In fact, they complement each other. The authority can reduce supply while the government runs awareness campaigns to encourage careful use. Step 4: Select the option that best reflects this combined approach. Since both courses are relevant, practical, and jointly strengthen the response to the crisis, the correct answer is that both I and II follow. Verification / Alternative check: Consider what would happen if only one course were implemented. If only I is implemented without public awareness, residents may complain and may not change their habits, leading to inconvenience and wastage. If only II is implemented, many people may ignore the appeal, and without a cut in supply the stored water may still run out too soon. Therefore, combining both measures is more robust and reflects realistic water management practice in times of scarcity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I follows: This ignores the important role of public cooperation and education through mass media. Only II follows: This assumes that an appeal alone will be sufficient, which is not guaranteed in a serious shortage. Neither I nor II follows: This would mean doing nothing effective, which is clearly unreasonable when the lakes are already at low levels. Common Pitfalls: Some students wrongly think that appealing to residents is too weak to be a valid course of action, or that imposing cuts is too harsh. In real policy, both supply restrictions and public awareness campaigns are used together. Another pitfall is to treat course of action questions as if only one action can ever follow, when in many cases a combination is the most logical choice. Final Answer: Both I and II follow.

Question 8

Read the following health related situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: A large number of people in ward X of the city have bee…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In this course of action problem, you are given a public health emergency: many people in a particular ward of the city are suffering from a fatal type of malaria. Your task is to determine which of the suggested courses of action are logical and necessary responses to this situation. This tests your understanding of preventive and control measures in the context of mosquito borne diseases and your ability to select actions that directly address the problem. Given Data / Assumptions: Ward X of the city has many people diagnosed with a fatal type of malaria. Malaria is spread through mosquito bites. The municipal authority is responsible for civic health measures such as fumigation. Residents can take individual precautions to avoid mosquito bites. Concept / Approach: A logical course of action in such a case should: Target the cause of malaria transmission, which is the mosquito vector. Include both community level measures and individual level precautions. Be urgent, practical, and preventive in nature. We examine both suggested actions to see if they satisfy these conditions. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. Extensive fumigation is a standard public health measure used to kill adult mosquitoes and reduce their population. Given that a large number of people are affected in ward X, immediate fumigation in that area is directly related to controlling the spread of malaria. Thus, I clearly follows. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Advising local residents to take steps to avoid mosquito bites, such as using nets, repellents, and removing stagnant water, is also a direct and necessary measure. It empowers individuals to protect themselves and reduces further infections. Hence, II also follows. Step 3: Consider whether both can operate together. There is no contradiction between municipal fumigation and personal protective measures. In fact, they complement each other and together form a more effective response. Step 4: Select the correct option. Since both I and II are appropriate and necessary, the correct answer is that both I and II follow. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the scenario if only one of the actions is taken. If only I is implemented, mosquito density may reduce for some time, but without personal protection people may still be at risk, especially if fumigation coverage is incomplete. If only II is implemented, residents may try to protect themselves, but a heavy mosquito population in the area would still pose a danger. The combination of community level fumigation and individual precautions is therefore the most effective and logical approach, confirming that both courses follow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I follows: This undervalues the importance of educating and advising people to take personal precautions. Only II follows: This ignores the crucial role of municipal level vector control in a severe outbreak. Neither I nor II follows: This would imply inaction in a serious health emergency, which is clearly unreasonable. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to select only one of the actions under the belief that questions usually have a single correct line of action. However, in public health scenarios, a mix of official measures and individual precautions is often necessary. Another pitfall is to underestimate the importance of awareness campaigns and behavioural advice, which are critical components of disease control programmes. Final Answer: Both I and II follow.

Question 9

Read the following political situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which of the courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: The Finance Minister submits his resignation a month …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question is based on a political and administrative situation: the Finance Minister submits a resignation one month before the budget is due to be presented in the Parliament. The task is to decide whether either of the two strong and opposite courses of action necessarily follows from the given statement. This problem tests your ability to distinguish between what is logically compelled by the information and what is a matter of policy choice or opinion. Given Data / Assumptions: The Finance Minister has submitted his resignation. The resignation occurs a month before the scheduled presentation of the new budget. The government and leadership will need to decide how to respond to this resignation. No further information is given about reasons for resignation, political stability, or availability of replacements. Concept / Approach: In course of action reasoning: An action follows only if it can be clearly justified by the given facts. When the statement does not provide enough information to prefer one specific decision, we cannot say that a particular strong step necessarily follows. If two courses are direct opposites, both cannot logically follow at the same time unless the question explicitly asks for possible alternatives. Here, I and II are mutually exclusive positions on the same decision. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine course of action I. Accepting the resignation and appointing a new Finance Minister may or may not be wise. The statement does not tell us why the minister resigned, what political considerations exist, or whether a capable replacement is ready. Therefore, we do not have sufficient information to declare that acceptance must follow. Step 2: Examine course of action II. Refusing to accept the resignation and asking the minister to continue may also be a possible course of action, but again the statement does not offer reasons to insist that this is the correct or necessary response. Step 3: Consider the mutual exclusivity. Since I and II directly contradict each other, they certainly cannot both follow simultaneously as logical consequences of the same limited information. Step 4: Decide whether at least one of them is logically compelled. Because the statement simply reports a resignation and gives no additional criteria, we cannot logically prefer acceptance or refusal. Thus, neither I nor II can be said to follow. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine various real scenarios. If the resignation is due to serious misconduct or health reasons, acceptance may be appropriate. If the resignation is due to a temporary disagreement or pressure and the minister is essential for the upcoming budget, refusal may be better. Since both possibilities are compatible with the bare statement, the statement alone does not logically lead to either acceptance or refusal. Therefore, neither course is mandated by the given information, which verifies our conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I follows: Incorrect because we lack information to justify mandatory acceptance. Only II follows: Incorrect because we lack information to justify mandatory refusal. Both I and II follow: Impossible because they are mutually exclusive decisions. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to import personal opinion or general political expectations into the reasoning. Some candidates may think that stability near budget time demands refusal of the resignation, while others may feel that a resigned minister must always be replaced. In logical reasoning questions, you must restrict yourself strictly to the information provided and not assume extra facts or norms that are not stated. Final Answer: Neither I nor II follows.

Question 10

Read the following statement about bill payment behaviour and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: People in Pratapgarh are not paying their tele…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question presents a situation involving non payment of telephone bills in a town and the introduction of a penalty through a formal notification. Although labelled as courses of action, the two statements a and b are really assumptions about how people will respond to the notification. You must decide which of these are reasonably taken for granted and therefore logically follow as underlying expectations behind the authority decision. Given Data / Assumptions: People in Pratapgarh have not been paying their telephone bills despite verbal warnings and reminders. The telephone authority has now issued a formal notification. The notification states that defaulters will be charged a penalty for every day of delay after the due date. The authority expects that this change in policy and communication will influence behaviour. Concept / Approach: For such reasoning: A valid underlying assumption must support the action taken by the authority. It must be reasonable to suppose that people react to financial penalties and formal notifications. If the authority issues a statutory notification with penalties, it is because they expect it to be effective. Statements a and b are both possible expectations about the effect of the notification. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate statement a. If a financial penalty is imposed for late payment, it is natural and reasonable to expect that many people will try to avoid extra cost by paying on time. Therefore, the telephone authority likely assumes that a majority of people may now pay their bills by the due date. So a follows as a logical expectation. Step 2: Evaluate statement b. The authority shifted from verbal warnings to a formal notification with a clear rule. Such notifications are statutory in nature and carry more weight. The authority would only rely on such a notification if it believed that people generally pay heed to statutory and written notices. Hence, b also follows. Step 3: Check consistency. Both a and b are supportive of the authority’s decision and are not contradictory. They jointly explain why issuing a penalty based notification is considered an effective step. Step 4: Determine the correct option. Since both assumptions are reasonable and necessary to justify the authority’s move, the correct choice is that both a and b follow. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine if the authority did not believe that penalties influence behaviour or that statutory notifications get attention. In that case, issuing such a notification would not make sense as a strategy. The fact that they chose this method indicates that they rely on those behavioural tendencies. This confirms that both a and b are part of the implicit reasoning behind the step taken by the telephone authority. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a follows: This ignores the clear role of the statutory nature of the notification in influencing citizens. Only b follows: This fails to recognise that the specific penalty clause is meant to push people toward timely payment. Neither a nor b follows: This would suggest that the authority acted without any reasonable expectation of impact, which is illogical. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes confuse assumptions with guaranteed outcomes. Here, a and b are assumptions, not certainties, but they still logically follow because they are necessary beliefs behind the decision. Another pitfall is to treat such questions as if only one statement can ever follow, even when both are clearly consistent and supportive of the action taken. Final Answer: Both a and b follow.

Question 11

Read the following crowd management situation and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: It is estimated that about twenty lakh people will visit t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question addresses the expected inflow of a very large number of visitors to a city during a festival. The aim is to judge which proposed measures are logical, practical, and directly connected to managing the situation. You must decide which steps authorities should reasonably take when such a massive crowd is anticipated. Given Data / Assumptions: Approximately twenty lakh people are expected to visit the city during the festival. This is a very large number relative to normal traffic. There may be pressure on law and order arrangements. Large gatherings increase the risk of accidents, health emergencies, and crowd related incidents. Civic authorities, police, and hospitals can take preventive steps. Concept / Approach: When a city expects a huge crowd: Maintaining law and order is a primary responsibility of the police. Health services must be prepared to handle emergencies. Measures that are impractical or may cause more problems, such as arbitrary crowd blocking without clear feasibility, may not be logical courses of action. We check each proposed course against these ideas. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action a. Monitoring the crowd is necessary, but restricting entry of people beyond a manageable number can be highly impractical in an open city with multiple entry points. Without additional information about controlled access or capacity limits, this measure may cause confusion, conflict, and may not be feasible at city scale. Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. Putting the local police authority on high alert is a standard and very logical step. With such a large crowd, risks of theft, clashes, stampedes, and traffic issues increase. The police need to be prepared in advance to maintain law and order. Step 3: Evaluate course of action c. All hospitals being on high alert during a major festival is also a reasonable and preventive course. Large gatherings can lead to accidents, sudden illnesses, or other medical emergencies. Preparedness in hospitals is therefore directly related to the expected situation. Step 4: Determine which courses follow. From the above, b and c clearly follow. Course a, involving restriction of entry beyond a manageable number at city level, is not clearly justified or practical based only on the given statement. Verification / Alternative check: Consider how cities normally manage big festivals. Police forces typically work with enhanced deployment and remain on high alert. Hospitals also plan for additional staff and emergency readiness. However, completely restricting entry to the city is an extreme measure rarely used except in very special circumstances and usually requires additional reasons like security threats. As no such special information is provided here, the logic supports b and c but not a. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a follows: Incorrect because a is not clearly practical at city level without more context, and it ignores the important and obvious roles of the police and hospitals. Only c follows: Incorrect because law and order concerns are equally important as medical readiness. Both a and b are sufficient: Incorrect because it wrongly includes a and leaves out the crucial health preparedness in c. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes assume that more restrictive measures are always better. In reasoning questions, however, feasibility and proportionality matter. It is easy to select a because it mentions restricting entry, but without infrastructure and planning details, this becomes impractical. Another pitfall is to overlook the health dimension and select only law and order measures, but both policing and medical readiness are central in large events. Final Answer: Both b and c follow.

Question 12

Read the following educational policy related statement and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: The Chairman stressed the need for making t…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question deals with educational reform. The Chairman expresses concern that the education system is not flexible enough and that the curriculum has not kept up with rapid changes. You must decide which of the suggested steps are natural, logical outcomes of his remarks. The problem tests your ability to connect stated concerns directly with suitable remedies. Given Data / Assumptions: The education system in question is considered too rigid by the Chairman. The curriculum has not been revised in line with ongoing changes in society and technology. The Chairman stresses the need for more flexibility in the education system. Curriculum revision is implied to be overdue. Concept / Approach: In such questions: We treat the Chairman’s remarks as highlighting two clear problems: lack of flexibility and outdated curriculum. Logical courses of action should directly address these problems. Actions that merely repeat the problems without providing a solution are not adequate, but actions that reform the system and curriculum are appropriate. We evaluate each proposed course of action against these criteria. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action a. If the curriculum is not revised in keeping with changes, a natural solution is to review and revise it regularly. Periodic review ensures that new developments in knowledge, technology, and society are incorporated. This is directly in line with the Chairman’s regret. Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. The Chairman explicitly stresses the need to make the education system more flexible. Therefore, an action aimed at increasing flexibility is a direct and logical response. Making the system more flexible may include flexible course choices, updated teaching methods, and adaptable evaluation systems. Step 3: Check if both actions are needed. The problems mentioned concern both curriculum content and overall flexibility. Therefore, both revising the curriculum and making the education system more flexible are valid and desirable courses of action. Step 4: Select the option that reflects this evaluation. Since both a and b logically follow, the correct answer is that both a and b follow. Verification / Alternative check: Ask whether the Chairman’s remarks would make sense if no changes were made to either curriculum or flexibility. Clearly, his criticism and stress on need for change imply that action should be taken on both fronts. Regular curriculum revision ensures relevance, while increasing flexibility improves responsiveness and individual learning paths. Both together create a modern and dynamic education system, which matches his concerns. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a follows: This addresses the outdated curriculum but ignores the explicitly stated need for greater flexibility in the system. Only b follows: This improves flexibility but leaves the actual content of education outdated. Neither a nor b follows: This contradicts the entire message of the Chairman’s statement, which clearly calls for change. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates see the two courses as overlapping and think that one alone is sufficient. However, the question makes it clear that there are two connected but distinct issues: curriculum lag and rigid system design. Another error is to think that the Chairman’s statement is merely descriptive and does not imply any specific action, but in reasoning questions, such strong criticism almost always suggests corresponding reforms. Final Answer: Both a and b follow.

Question 13

Read the following statement about development planning and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: The state government X has chalked out a de…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question is about decentralised development planning. State government X has planned to place a major share of funds for district Y in the hands of a committee of local representatives. Your task is to determine which suggested course of action logically follows from this plan. The question tests whether you can identify what steps are necessary for such a committee based system to function effectively. Given Data / Assumptions: District Y is underdeveloped. State government X has created a plan for its development. Under the plan, 80 percent of funds will be handled by a local representatives committee. The committee will be responsible for deciding how these funds are used. No information is given about other states or any Central government instructions. Concept / Approach: When a large amount of public funds is handed over to a committee: There must be guidelines and norms to ensure transparency, accountability, and proper utilisation. The state that initiates the plan bears responsibility for defining these rules. Actions regarding other states or Central directions must not be assumed without explicit information. We evaluate courses I and II against this background. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. If 80 percent of the funds are in the hands of a local committee, clear guidelines and norms are essential to prevent misuse and to ensure effective implementation. Therefore, the state government X should definitely define how the committee will function, what procedures it will follow, and how accountability will be maintained. This is directly implied by the plan. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. This statement talks about other state governments possibly following a similar plan, but only if the Central government directs them. The given statement does not mention any Central government role or any suggestion that the plan is meant as a model for other states. Thus, II introduces new information not supported by the original statement. Step 3: Decide which courses follow. I clearly follows as a necessary supporting step for the new plan, while II is speculative and unrelated to the core details given. Therefore, only I follows. Step 4: Choose the correct option. The option that states Only I follows is the right answer. Verification / Alternative check: Ask what would happen if no guidelines were given. The local committee might take arbitrary decisions, misuse funds, or face internal conflicts, which would undermine the goal of developing district Y. This shows that defining norms is essential. On the other hand, whether other states adopt similar plans depends on many separate policy decisions and is not logically mandated by the single example of state X, especially in the absence of any Central directive in the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only II follows: Incorrect because II brings in other states and Central government directions, which are not connected to the given information. Either I or II follows: Incorrect because I and II are not alternative solutions to the same problem; only I is clearly required. Neither I nor II follows: Incorrect because I is clearly necessary for sound implementation of the development plan. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that any statement involving policy spread to other states is automatically valid. However, logical following requires explicit or strongly implied support from the statement. Another pitfall is to underestimate the importance of rules and norms when public funds are delegated. In reality and in reasoning questions, such guidelines are fundamental to any decentralised funding scheme. Final Answer: Only I follows.

Question 14

Read the following migration related statement and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: There is an unprecedented increase in migration of villag…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question concerns rural to urban migration caused by repeated crop failures and severe financial distress among villagers. You must judge which of the proposed actions address the problem in a logical and humane way. The question tests your ability to consider both long term structural solutions and short term relief measures. Given Data / Assumptions: Villagers are migrating to urban areas in unprecedented numbers. The root cause is repeated crop failure. These crop failures have created a precarious financial situation for villagers. Villagers move to cities mainly in search of livelihood and survival. Authorities can influence rural employment and urban job creation. Concept / Approach: In such socio economic reasoning: A good course of action should tackle both the cause and the effect of the problem. Long term solutions aim to make villages economically viable. Short term measures help those who have already migrated to survive in cities. We evaluate both suggested courses with this in mind. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. Providing alternate sources of income in villages, such as rural employment schemes, small industries, or allied agricultural activities, directly addresses the root cause of migration: lack of income due to crop failure. This helps villagers stay in their home areas with dignity and is a logical long term solution. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Many villagers have already migrated and are in urban areas, often without stable jobs. Providing employment opportunities to such migrants helps them survive and prevents urban poverty from becoming even worse. This is a compassionate and practical short term response. Step 3: Check compatibility. These two actions address different stages of the problem: I reduces future migration, and II supports those who have already moved. They are complementary, not contradictory. Step 4: Decide which courses follow. Given the seriousness of the situation and the dual nature of the problem, both I and II logically follow as necessary responses. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine if only I were implemented. Over time, fewer villagers would migrate, but those who already migrated would still struggle in cities, which may create slums and urban poverty. If only II were implemented, existing migrants might be helped, but the root cause in villages would remain, leading to continued high migration. Combining both measures provides a more comprehensive approach to the crisis, confirming that both courses follow. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I follows: Incomplete because it does nothing for villagers who have already migrated and are struggling in cities. Only II follows: Incomplete because it fails to reduce ongoing forced migration from villages. Neither I nor II follows: This implies no constructive action, which is unreasonable in view of the seriousness of the problem. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that only root cause solutions are valid, ignoring immediate relief measures, or they focus solely on immediate relief and ignore long term structural reforms. In realistic reasoning, both dimensions are important. Another pitfall is to assume that the question expects one unique course of action, even when a combination is clearly more logical and humane. Final Answer: Both I and II follow.

Question 15

Read the following statement about school dropouts and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: The number of dropouts in government schools has…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question focuses on an increase in school dropouts from government schools in urban areas. You must judge whether the suggested actions are logical, fair, and effective responses to the problem described. The question tests your ability to reject extreme and unjust solutions even when a serious problem is presented. Given Data / Assumptions: There has been a significant increase in the number of dropouts from government schools in urban areas. The problem has persisted over the past few years. We are not given specific causes of dropout, such as quality issues, economic pressure, or social problems. The government and parents both play roles in education, but their responsibilities are not clearly detailed in the statement. Concept / Approach: For a course of action to follow: It must be reasonable, fair, and relevant to the problem. It should not be excessively harsh or create new injustices. Actions like closing schools or punishing parents must be carefully evaluated to see if they genuinely address the cause of the problem. We assess both suggested actions against these criteria. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. Closing all government schools in urban areas where dropout exceeds 20 percent is an extreme step. It would reduce educational access for children in already problematic areas and punish students who remain. The statement gives no indication that the schools themselves are beyond improvement, nor that closure would solve the underlying causes of dropout. Therefore, I does not logically follow. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Punishing parents of all dropout students assumes that parents are always fully responsible for dropouts. In reality, many factors such as financial constraints, school quality, peer influence, or health problems may contribute. Without evidence that parents are deliberately preventing education, punishing them is unjust and not logically supported by the statement. Step 3: Determine whether either action follows. Both actions are punitive and extreme, and neither addresses the root causes of dropout in a constructive way. Hence, neither I nor II follows. Step 4: Select the correct option. The option that states neither course of action I nor II follows is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Consider more sensible actions that could be taken, such as improving school infrastructure, increasing teacher quality, offering support to poor families, or conducting studies to understand reasons for dropout. These would appear in a well designed reasoning question as logical courses of action. In contrast, closing schools or punishing parents do not appear to target the real problem and are likely to worsen the situation, confirming that they do not follow logically. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only course of action I follows: Incorrect because closure is harsh and counterproductive. Only course of action II follows: Incorrect because punishment of parents is not justified by the given information. Either course of action I or II follows: Incorrect because both are unsuitable; the problem is not about choosing between two harsh alternatives. Both courses of action I and II follow: Incorrect because together they would create even greater injustice and do not address root causes. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to think that severe actions demonstrate seriousness and therefore must be correct. Logical reasoning questions often include such extreme options to test whether you can resist that impulse. Another pitfall is to assume parents are always at fault for dropouts without considering poverty, social challenges, or school level issues, which are frequently major factors in real life. Final Answer: Neither course of action I nor II follows.

Question 16

Read the following statement about an Institute and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: The Committee has criticised the Institute for its …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action problem deals with an Institute that has been criticised by a Committee for not implementing its regular programmes despite increased staff strength and for not preparing a firm action plan for studies and research. You must decide which of the suggested courses of action are logical responses to this criticism. The question focuses on accountability and structural reform in an academic or research institution. Given Data / Assumptions: The Institute has a set of regular programmes that were supposed to be implemented. The Institute has also failed to draw up a firm action plan for studies and research. A Committee has formally criticised the Institute for these failures. Concept / Approach: Logical courses of action in this context should: Address immediate accountability for non implementation. Improve future planning and alignment of objectives and actions. Recognise that both clarification of past failure and structural changes for the future may be needed. We examine whether I and II satisfy these aims. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action II first. If an Institute fails to implement planned programmes, it is reasonable and necessary for it to explain why. A report that gives reasons for non implementation helps the Committee and oversight bodies to understand obstacles, such as resource issues, management problems, or unrealistic targets. Therefore, II clearly follows as a demand for accountability. Step 2: Evaluate course of action I. The criticism also indicates that even with increased staff, the Institute could not implement programmes or create a proper action plan. This may suggest that current objectives are too broad, vague, or misaligned with actual capacity. Redefining broad objectives to make them more practical can help translate them into an implementable action plan. Thus, I is a logical longer term reform step. Step 3: Consider how I and II relate. II addresses past failure by seeking explanation. I looks to the future by aligning objectives with realistic planning. They are complementary and not mutually exclusive. Step 4: Decide which courses follow. Since both accountability for the past and structural reform for the future are sensible, both I and II follow. Verification / Alternative check: Think of a real Institute in such a situation. It would first be asked to justify why programmes were not completed, which matches II. Then governance bodies might ask it to revise its objectives and planning method to avoid repetition of the same problem, which matches I. If only II is done, reasons are known but systemic issues may continue. If only I is done, changes are made without understanding what went wrong earlier. Combining both steps is the most rational approach, confirming our conclusion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I follows: Incomplete because it does not require the Institute to explain previous non performance. Only II follows: Incomplete because it does not demand any reform of objectives or planning to prevent future failures. Neither I nor II follows: Incorrect because doing nothing after such criticism would be unreasonable and irresponsible. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates may focus only on punishment or explanation and ignore the need for structural improvements, while others may jump only to reforms without seeking accountability for past failures. Logical course of action questions often expect you to recognise both dimensions when the statement clearly shows systemic issues and repeated non implementation. Final Answer: Both I and II follow.

Question 17

Read the following statement about mobile tariffs and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows, assuming the statement is completely true.  Statement: Cell phone users have found that tariff plans are…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question involves consumer complaints about misleading mobile tariff promotions. Users feel that the tariff plans are not as attractive as advertised and have approached the regulatory authority. You must decide which suggested course of action is a logical response to this situation. The question tests your understanding of consumer protection and market regulation principles. Given Data / Assumptions: Telecom companies are promoting tariff plans as attractive. Actual tariffs are not as attractive as claimed in the promotions. Consumers have complained to the regulatory authority about this mismatch. The regulatory authority can issue directions to companies. The government can regulate the number of companies in the market, but no problem about excessive competition is stated. Concept / Approach: Logical courses of action should: Directly address the cause of the complaint. Be proportionate, fair, and targeted. Not introduce unrelated policy changes that do not solve the identified problem. Here, the core issue is lack of transparency and possibly misleading advertising by telecom companies. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. If users feel misled about tariff attractiveness, the natural remedy is greater transparency in tariff structures. The regulatory authority can insist that companies clearly state all charges, conditions, and true benefits in their advertisements and communication. This directly addresses the complaint and promotes fair information. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Restricting the number of telecom companies is unrelated to the problem described. The issue is not overcrowding of the market but misrepresentation of tariffs by companies. Fewer companies would not automatically guarantee honest marketing and may even reduce competition, which often leads to worse outcomes for consumers. Step 3: Decide which course follows. I is a direct, reasonable, and targeted consumer protection measure, while II is unrelated to the stated complaint. Therefore, only I follows. Step 4: Choose the correct option. The option that states only course of action I follows is the correct answer. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine that the regulatory authority enforces full tariff transparency. Consumers would then be able to compare plans clearly and avoid surprises, solving the mismatch between promise and reality. If instead the government simply reduced the number of telecom companies without any rule about honest advertising, the problem would persist. This confirms that course I addresses the root issue while course II does not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only course of action II follows: Incorrect because it does not relate to the problem of misleading tariff promotions. Either course of action I or II follows: Incorrect because II is not a valid response in this context. Both courses of action I and II follow: Incorrect because combining a relevant measure with an irrelevant one still leaves the irrelevant part unjustified. Common Pitfalls: Some students think that any strong government intervention, such as restricting the number of companies, must be a correct course of action. However, in logical reasoning you must ensure that the action directly responds to the specific issue raised. Another pitfall is to assume that fewer companies automatically means better service or honest behaviour, which is not necessarily true without proper regulation and transparency rules. Final Answer: Only course of action I follows.

Question 18

Read the following statement about ground water depletion and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which courses of action logically follow, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: The water table in most parts of the State has…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question concerns environmental and agricultural policy. The water table has dropped so low in most parts of the State that extracting ground water for irrigation has become uneconomical. You must decide which of the proposed actions the government should logically take to handle this serious problem. The question tests your ability to recognise both conservation needs and farmers welfare. Given Data / Assumptions: The water table is severely depleted in most parts of the State. Using ground water for irrigation is no longer economical due to the depth and cost of extraction. Farmers currently rely on ground water for irrigation. The government can regulate water use and can promote alternative irrigation methods. Concept / Approach: Logical courses of action must consider: Environmental sustainability: the need to allow the water table to recover. Agricultural viability: farmers still need water to grow crops. Balance between short term survival and long term resource protection. We therefore examine both actions for relevance and feasibility. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action I. If the water table is already very low, continuing extraction will worsen the crisis and may lead to complete exhaustion of ground water. A temporary ban or strong restriction on ground water extraction can help the aquifer recover. As the statement points to a very serious level of depletion, a ban for some period is a logical conservation measure. Step 2: Evaluate course of action II. Since farmers can no longer economically rely on ground water, the government must provide alternative irrigation methods such as surface water schemes, drip irrigation, canal systems, or water harvesting structures. This ensures that farmers do not suffer complete crop failure while ground water use is restricted. Step 3: Evaluate the combination. I addresses the environmental side by limiting use of ground water, while II takes care of the economic and social side by supporting farmers. They are complementary and together form a complete strategy. Step 4: Decide which courses follow. Because the situation is grave and both protection of the resource and support for farmers are needed, both I and II logically follow. Verification / Alternative check: If only I were implemented and ground water extraction was banned without alternatives, farmers could face severe hardship, crop loss, and even food supply issues. If only II were implemented and alternative irrigation methods were promoted but ground water extraction continued freely, the water table might drop further, leading to long term disaster. Only by combining a conservation measure with provision of alternatives can the State responsibly manage the crisis, confirming that both courses follow logically. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only course of action I follows: Incomplete because it ignores the immediate needs of farmers whose livelihoods depend on irrigation. Only course of action II follows: Incomplete because it does not directly stop the harmful over extraction of ground water. Either I or II follows: Incorrect because the two are not alternatives; they address different dimensions of the same problem. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to select only the environmental or only the economic side of the response. Logical course of action questions often require you to recognise that complex problems need multi dimensional solutions. Another pitfall is to assume that a ban alone is sufficient, without considering how people affected by the ban will cope in the short term. Final Answer: Both courses of action I and II follow.

Question 19

Read the following statement about disruption of transport services and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: The air and rail services have been …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question describes severe disruption of air and rail services due to thick fog in the northern part of the country. You must evaluate which proposed actions are logical, practical, and directly supported by the statement. The problem tests your ability to distinguish between reasonable short term responses and extreme or unrealistic measures. Given Data / Assumptions: Thick fog has developed in the northern region. Air and rail services have been severely disrupted, leading to delays and cancellations. Passengers may be affected by this situation. The government and transport authorities can issue advisories and consider technical upgrades. Concept / Approach: In such cases: Short term, practical measures include informing the public and adjusting schedules. Complete suspension of services may be too extreme if some level of safe operation is still possible. Immediate installation of advanced machines is usually not realistic because such projects require time, planning, and resources. We examine each proposed course using these considerations. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action a. Temporarily suspending all rail and air services in the region is a very drastic step. The statement mentions severe disruption, but not that operations are impossible everywhere. With careful scheduling and speed control, some services may still operate safely. Therefore, a blanket suspension appears excessive and is not clearly compelled by the statement. Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. Advising people to plan their travel with the probable disruption in mind is a reasonable and practical step. It helps passengers set realistic expectations, adjust their schedules, and avoid unnecessary inconvenience. This is a direct and low cost response supported by the situation. Step 3: Evaluate course of action c. Installing modern guiding machines for rail and air services may be useful in the long term, but the statement talks about an immediate fog situation. Such technological upgrades cannot be implemented instantly; they require detailed planning, procurement, and installation. Hence, saying that the government should immediately install these machines is not realistic as a direct logical response. Step 4: Decide which course follows. Only b is a clearly practical and directly supported action that can be taken in the short term based on the given information. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine what authorities usually do during fog seasons. They issue travel advisories, inform passengers about delays, and adjust operations rather than completely suspending services unless conditions are extremely dangerous everywhere. They may plan technological improvements, but these are long term projects. Thus, advising people about possible disruption aligns best with real world practice and with the statement, confirming that only b follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a follows: Incorrect because full suspension is too extreme and not clearly required by the statement. a and b follow: Incorrect because it wrongly includes a, which is not justified. a, b and c follow: Incorrect because it includes both an extreme short term step and an unrealistic immediate technological solution. Common Pitfalls: Some candidates feel that if a situation is severe, the strongest action must be right. However, logical reasoning requires proportional and feasible responses. Another pitfall is to accept any technically advanced option without considering feasibility and time frame. The word immediately in c is particularly important; it makes the suggestion unrealistic as an immediate course of action. Final Answer: Only b follows.

Question 20

Read the following statement about tourism development and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: Huge amounts of resources are required to develop…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question discusses the development of tourist places in India, a country with diverse natural and cultural attractions. The statement highlights the need for huge resources to develop tourism. You must determine which of the proposed actions is a logical and balanced response to this observation. The question checks whether you can distinguish between narrow and comprehensive strategies. Given Data / Assumptions: India has vast coastlines, rivers, forests, temples, and other attractions. Developing tourist places in such a country requires huge amounts of resources. The statement suggests a large, varied tourism potential. There is interest in planning how to develop this potential. Concept / Approach: A logical course of action must: Address the overall potential mentioned in the statement. Be inclusive and balanced rather than arbitrarily narrow. Help utilise resources efficiently across different types of attractions. We compare both proposed courses using these criteria. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action a. It recommends starting more tourist resorts along the coastlines only. However, the statement clearly notes that India also has rivers, forests, temples, and other attractions. Focusing only on coastlines ignores many other important tourist assets. Therefore, a is too narrow and not a logical direct response to the broad potential described. Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. It suggests that the tourist potential of India should be exploited. This matches the idea that India has diverse attractions and that resources can be used to develop tourism systematically across these different areas. It is broad, flexible, and directly aligned with the statement. Step 3: Decide which course follows. Since a restricts development to coastlines despite a wide variety of attractions, it does not fully respect the statement. In contrast, b clearly follows as a natural conclusion that India should take advantage of its tourism potential. Step 4: Choose the correct option. Only b follows is the appropriate answer. Verification / Alternative check: Consider how a national tourism policy would be designed in light of the given statement. It would likely aim to develop beaches, rivers, forests, heritage sites, temples, and more, rather than concentrating solely on coastlines. Course of action b leaves room for all these possibilities, while a restricts development to only one type of attraction. This confirms that b alone follows logically. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a follows: Incorrect because it focuses only on coastlines and ignores the broader set of attractions mentioned. Both a and b follow: Incorrect because a is not consistent with a balanced exploitation of overall tourist potential. Neither a nor b follows: Incorrect because b is a valid and natural conclusion. Common Pitfalls: Some students may think that since coastlines are attractive, focusing on them is always a good idea. However, course of action questions require alignment with the entire statement, not just part of it. Another pitfall is to treat the word exploit as negative, but in this context it simply means to use the tourist potential in a planned and beneficial way. Final Answer: Only b follows.

Course of Action Questions