Question 1

Read the following statement about traffic safety and the suggested courses of action, and then decide which course of action logically follows, assuming the statement is fully true.  Statement: There is a substantial increase in the number of accid…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This course of action question focuses on road safety. There has been a substantial increase in serious accidents due to malfunctioning traffic signals at important junctions. You must decide which suggested course of action logically follows from this information. The question tests your ability to identify the action that addresses the root cause of the problem rather than just its symptoms. Given Data / Assumptions: Traffic signals at major road junctions are malfunctioning. This malfunction has led to a substantial increase in accidents causing deaths and severe injuries. Traffic police can deploy personnel at junctions. The signal system can be repaired or replaced. Concept / Approach: In such problems: The main objective is to remove the cause of accidents. Short term measures may help reduce risk temporarily, but permanent solutions must fix the faulty system. A logical course of action should be effective, focused, and sustainable. We check both suggested actions against these ideas. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate course of action a. Posting traffic personnel at the affected junctions can help regulate traffic in the short term and may reduce accidents while they are present. However, this is a temporary arrangement, depends on continuous human presence, and does not fix the malfunctioning signals that are the root cause. Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. Repairing or replacing the faulty signal system directly tackles the cause of the accidents. Once the signals function properly, they can regulate traffic safely at all times without constant human supervision. This is a permanent and technically appropriate solution to the stated problem. Step 3: Decide which course logically follows. Although posting traffic personnel can be a short term measure, the statement emphasises that accidents are due to malfunctioning signals. Therefore, the essential course of action that directly follows is to immediately repair or replace the signals, as in b. Step 4: Evaluate the option that suggests either a or b follows. This would mean both are equally acceptable alternatives, but the statement clearly points to a permanent technical fault that must be corrected. Hence, only b can be taken as the necessary course of action. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine the situation after only a is implemented. Accidents may reduce while officers are on duty, but if they are absent or overloaded, the risk remains because the signals still malfunction. When only b is implemented, once the signals are fixed, traffic is systematically controlled and accidents due to malfunctioning signals will reduce significantly. This shows b is the more fundamental and logically required response, confirming that only b follows. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only a follows: Incorrect because it does not address the root cause and is not sustainable as a long term solution. Either a or b follows: Incorrect because it treats a temporary human arrangement as equivalent to fixing the faulty system. Neither a nor b follows: Incorrect because doing nothing or ignoring the fault would be irresponsible in a serious safety issue. Common Pitfalls: A common error is to treat any plausible action as a valid course of action without asking if it is fundamental or just temporary. Another pitfall is to think that because the question mentions immediate posting of personnel, it must be correct. In logical reasoning, you must look for the measure that truly resolves the source of the problem rather than simply managing the symptoms. Final Answer: Only b follows.

Question 2

In this course of action logical reasoning question, air export volumes have increased substantially over the past decade, causing serious backlogs and difficulties for air cargo agents because demand for space and service has risen sharply. Based o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the course of action type in logical reasoning. The statement explains that air export volumes have increased substantially over the past decade. As a result, air cargo agents are facing backlogs and operational difficulties because demand for space and service has grown sharply. The test here is to identify which suggested courses of action directly address the stated problem in a realistic and responsible way. We must decide whether airlines and cargo agents should work together, whether causes of the increase should be investigated, or whether neither or both actions logically follow from the situation. Given Data / Assumptions: Air export volumes have increased substantially over the past decade. This increase has caused backlogs and operational difficulties for air cargo agents. The difficulty is due to increased demand for cargo space and related services. Course of action a: Airlines and air cargo agents should jointly work out a solution to combat the problem. Course of action b: The reasons for the increase in the volume of air exports should be found out. Concept / Approach: In course of action questions, we evaluate whether a proposed step directly and reasonably addresses the problem described in the statement. A valid course of action should be practical, relevant, and within the control of the agents mentioned. It should not be redundant or focus on information that we already know. Here, we already know that demand has increased and that backlogs exist. So we must see which course leads to constructive mitigation of the backlog rather than simply restating or searching for causes that have already been identified. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the core problem. The main issue is backlog and difficulty in handling increased air export volumes due to higher demand for space and service.Step 2: Examine course of action a. Airlines and air cargo agents working jointly to find a solution directly targets the operational backlog. Joint planning can optimize scheduling, capacity allocation, infrastructure use, and service processes. This is a relevant and practical response.Step 3: Examine course of action b. The statement already mentions that volumes increased and that this increase is because of higher demand for space and services. The broad reason is therefore known. Finding additional reasons for higher exports does not by itself reduce the backlog or remove difficulty.Step 4: Compare impact. Course a directly attacks the problem by improving coordination and efficiency. Course b is more of an analytical exercise and does not guarantee any immediate relief.Step 5: Conclude which course logically follows. Since only course a directly addresses the stated problem in a practical manner, only a follows. Verification / Alternative check: If we imagine being a decision maker in an airline or cargo agency, the first urgent need would be to reduce backlog and improve service speed. Joint planning between airlines and agents would help adjust schedules, allocate capacity, and add resources. Merely researching reasons for demand growth would not solve the operational bottleneck, especially when the primary reason, higher demand, is already clear from the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b (Both courses of action a and b follow) is not correct because course b does not contribute meaningfully to solving the backlog problem when broad reasons are already known. Option c (Only course b follows) is wrong because course b alone does not provide a direct, actionable solution to the backlog and difficulties. Option d (Neither a nor b follows) is wrong because course a is clearly a sensible and relevant step that directly addresses the situation. Option e (None of these) is wrong because one of the listed courses, namely a, is valid. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes think that investigating reasons is always a good course of action. However, in many reasoning questions, if the cause is already described in the statement, suggesting that we must again find the reason is redundant and not counted as a valid course of action. Another mistake is to assume both actions must be chosen whenever they sound positive. In course of action questions, each option is judged strictly on whether it logically and directly addresses the problem as stated. Final Answer: Only course of action a follows.

Question 3

In this course of action logical reasoning problem, the Ministry of Tourism has reported that recent social disturbances in the country have caused a considerable decrease in the number of foreign tourists, resulting in an estimated financial loss o…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests course of action reasoning in the context of tourism and economic loss. The Ministry of Tourism has reported that social disturbances have reduced the number of foreign tourists and caused a significant financial loss of about 100 crore rupees. We are given two possible courses of action: providing financial support to the tourism sector and warning foreign tourists that they visit at their own risk. Our task is to decide which actions logically follow from the situation and are responsible, practical, and aligned with long term interests of the country and its tourism industry. Given Data / Assumptions: Recent social disturbance in the country has occurred. The number of foreign tourists has decreased considerably as a result. The country has suffered a financial loss of about 100 crore rupees in tourism related revenue. Course of action a: The government should provide financial support to the tourism sector. Course of action b: Foreign tourists should be informed that they visit the country at their own risk. Concept / Approach: In course of action questions, a valid course must be directly related to the problem, practically implementable, and socially responsible. It should aim to reduce the negative impact, prevent further damage, or support recovery. Measures that may worsen the situation, damage reputation, or contradict common sense are usually considered invalid. Here, the problem is reduced tourist inflow and financial loss due to social disturbances. We evaluate whether providing support and issuing risk warnings are suitable responses. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the impact. The tourism sector is facing revenue loss due to fewer visitors, which affects hotels, travel operators, guides, and related businesses.Step 2: Evaluate course of action a. Providing financial support to the tourism sector can help stabilize affected businesses, support employment, and maintain infrastructure until conditions improve. It directly addresses the loss and is a common governmental response to sector specific shocks.Step 3: Evaluate course of action b. Informing foreign tourists that they visit at their own risk may further discourage visitors. It emphasises danger instead of restoring confidence. While transparent information about security is important, an official statement framed as a risk warning harms the image of the country as a safe destination.Step 4: Compare with the problem. The target is to reduce loss and revive tourist inflow. Financial support helps sustain the sector in the short term and signals governmental commitment. A formal risk warning would likely reduce tourist numbers further and is counter productive.Step 5: Conclude which course logically follows. Only course of action a is a constructive and logical response, while b goes against the objective of supporting tourism. Verification / Alternative check: Consider practical policy making. When an industry faces temporary decline due to disturbances, governments often provide tax relief, subsidies, marketing support, or credit assistance. These are forms of financial support to preserve jobs and capacity. At the same time, tourism boards try to rebuild a positive image, not warn people away. Therefore, course a is consistent with common policy practice, whereas course b would worsen the situation and is unlikely to be officially recommended. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (Only course of action b follows) is incorrect because course b would reduce tourist arrivals further instead of addressing the loss. Option c (Both a and b follow) is wrong because adding course b contradicts the goal of reviving tourism, even though course a is valid. Option d (Neither a nor b follows) is wrong because course a clearly provides practical support to the affected sector. Option e (None of these) is wrong since one of the listed courses, a, does follow logically. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to think that cautioning people is always a safe answer. In reasoning questions, we must check whether a proposed action aligns with the main objective. Another pitfall is ignoring economic effects. Warning tourists in this aggressive way directly contradicts the need to restore confidence and revenue. Learners must distinguish between providing accurate security information and issuing a discouraging blanket risk statement. Final Answer: Only course of action a follows.

Question 4

An expert group on technical education has stressed that computer education should be provided to children from primary school onward and that this implementation should take place simultaneously in both urban and rural schools. In this course of ac…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on policy related course of action in the field of education. An expert group on technical education has recommended that computer education be introduced from the primary school stage in both urban and rural areas. The issue is how to translate this recommendation into practical steps. We must judge whether issuing instructions to all schools and training at least one teacher in each school are appropriate and necessary actions that logically follow from the recommendation. Given Data / Assumptions: Experts on technical education recommend that computer education begin at the primary level. This recommendation applies to both urban and rural schools and should be implemented simultaneously. Course of action a: The government should issue instructions to all schools to provide computer education. Course of action b: At least one teacher in each school should be trained in computer operations to teach children. We assume that computer education requires infrastructure, trained staff, and policy support. Concept / Approach: To judge a course of action, we check whether it is relevant, practical, and directed toward implementing the goal described in the statement. For a policy recommendation in education, authorities must first formalize the policy and then ensure that schools have the capacity to carry it out, which includes trained teachers. Both systemic instructions and capacity building are usually essential. Any action that ignores these basic requirements is incomplete. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Understand the recommendation. Computer education needs to be incorporated from primary classes in both rural and urban schools.Step 2: Evaluate course of action a. For any nationwide educational change, the government has to issue clear instructions, guidelines, or directives to all schools. Without formal instructions, implementation will be uneven or absent. Hence, course a is directly linked to executing the recommendation.Step 3: Evaluate course of action b. Computer education requires teachers who can operate computers and teach children effectively. Training at least one teacher in each school is a minimum requirement to start classes. This ensures that the new subject is not introduced only on paper but can actually be taught.Step 4: Check for consistency with the aim of simultaneous implementation in urban and rural schools. Both actions help all schools move together: instructions set the policy and training ensures that both rural and urban schools have basic staff capacity.Step 5: Conclude that both course of action a and course of action b logically follow from the statement. Verification / Alternative check: Think practically about the rollout of a new subject. The sequence usually is: policy decision, formal communication to institutions, teacher training, provision of equipment, and monitoring. Course a corresponds to formal communication. Course b corresponds to teacher training. If either step is missing, the programme will fall short. Therefore, both courses are not only reasonable but almost essential for successful execution of the expert recommendation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b (Only a follows) is wrong because simply issuing instructions without trained teachers leads to poor quality implementation. Option c (Only b follows) is wrong because training teachers without any official instruction or policy mandate will not scale across all schools. Option d (Neither a nor b follows) is clearly incorrect since both actions directly support the stated goal. Option e (None of these) is wrong because there is a specific correct combination, namely both a and b. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes assume that issuing instructions alone is enough, forget that implementation requires trained staff, or think that training one teacher is not sufficient. In reasoning questions, we treat each course as a broad policy direction rather than a detailed implementation plan. Another common confusion is to treat course b as optional. In reality, without trained teachers, the recommendation will remain symbolic in rural and urban schools alike. Final Answer: Both courses of action a and b follow.

Question 5

A statement says that if retired professors of the same institute are invited to participate in discussions on restructuring the organisation, their contribution may be beneficial to the institute. In this course of action reasoning question, which …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question concerns organisational restructuring and the appropriate involvement of experienced people. The statement tells us that inviting retired professors of the same institute to deliberate on restructuring may provide beneficial contributions. Two possible courses of action are suggested: first, to seek the opinion of employees before calling retired professors, and second, to involve experienced people in systematic restructuring. We must evaluate which actions logically follow from the given information and align with the goal of effective restructuring. Given Data / Assumptions: Retired professors from the same institute may give beneficial input on restructuring the organisation. Course of action a: Management may seek the opinion of current employees before calling retired professors. Course of action b: Management should involve experienced people for the systematic restructuring of the organisation. We assume that retired professors are among the most experienced people regarding the institute and its academic functioning. Concept / Approach: In course of action questions, a valid course should be directly connected to the problem or opportunity mentioned in the statement. It should be necessary, helpful, and logically supported. The statement highlights the potential benefit of inviting retired professors, which emphasises the value of experience. There is no mention of the need to seek prior consent or opinion of employees for this decision. Therefore we test whether involving experienced people logically follows and whether seeking employee opinion is required by the information given. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Identify the main idea. The statement focuses on the benefit of inviting retired professors because their experience can help restructuring.Step 2: Evaluate course of action b. It generalises the idea to say that management should involve experienced people for systematic restructuring. Since the statement already suggests that retired professors, who are experienced, can be beneficial, involving experienced people clearly follows logically.Step 3: Evaluate course of action a. Seeking the opinion of employees before inviting retired professors is not suggested by the statement. The need to obtain such opinion is neither implied nor required for benefiting from the experience of retired professors.Step 4: Check relevance. Course a shifts focus from using expertise to internal approval processes, which are not discussed in the statement. Course b directly addresses the core idea: use experience to improve restructuring.Step 5: Conclude that only course of action b logically follows. Verification / Alternative check: If management has information that retired professors can be helpful, the key course is to involve them or other experienced people in restructuring. Internal consultation with employees may be good in practice, but it is not a necessary logical outcome of the given statement. The reasoning task asks what must or should follow, based on what is stated, not what might be democratically desirable in general. Thus course b is supported, and course a is not required by the information. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (Only course of action a follows) is wrong because the statement does not suggest that employee opinion is a precondition to inviting retired professors. Option b (Neither a nor b follows) is wrong because the statement clearly supports the importance of involving experienced people, which is reflected in course b. Option c (Both a and b follow) is wrong, since action a is not logically implied. Option e (None of these) is wrong because there is one valid course, namely b. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume that any action that sounds democratic or consultative is automatically valid. In logical reasoning exams, we must stick to what the statement supports. Another pitfall is to miss the generalisation from retired professors to experienced people in general. Since retired professors are clearly experienced, a principle recommending experienced people in restructuring is directly in line with the statement. Final Answer: Only course of action b follows.

Question 6

The Asian Development Bank has approved a loan of 285 million United States dollars to finance a project for constructing coal ports to be managed by Paradip Port Trust and Madras Port Trust. In this course of action question, which of the following…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question is about national level decision making and the use of international financial assistance. The Asian Development Bank has approved a substantial loan to finance construction of coal ports at Paradip and Madras. Two possible courses of action are suggested: that India should use financial assistance from other international organisations to develop such ports in other places, or that India should not seek such assistance at all. Our task is to choose which course logically follows from the statement and represents a balanced and rational policy direction. Given Data / Assumptions: A loan of 285 million United States dollars has been approved by the Asian Development Bank. The loan is for constructing coal ports for Paradip Port Trust and Madras Port Trust. Coal ports are important infrastructure for trade, energy, and industry. Course of action I: India should use financial assistance from other international financial organisations to develop such ports in other places. Course of action II: India should not seek such financial assistance from international financial agencies. Concept / Approach: When judging courses of action, we check whether they align with the benefits and implications of the statement. The statement implicitly shows that India is already using international assistance from the Asian Development Bank to create needed infrastructure. From this, we can infer whether similar assistance from other agencies might be useful elsewhere. However, an extreme proposal to completely avoid such assistance contradicts the very practice reflected in the statement. We must avoid actions that unnecessarily block beneficial support without clear reasons in the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret the statement. India has accepted a sizeable loan from an international agency for coal port development. This reflects a willingness to use external financial support for infrastructure where needed.Step 2: Evaluate course of action I. If building coal ports with external assistance at two locations is beneficial, then using similar financial help from other reputable agencies to develop needed ports at additional locations is a logical extension, subject to usual project evaluation.Step 3: Evaluate course of action II. Saying that India should not seek such assistance at all is inconsistent with the fact that India has already accepted such a loan. The statement gives no indication of negative consequences from this assistance.Step 4: Check alignment with infrastructure needs. For a developing economy, obtaining long term loans on suitable terms can accelerate infrastructure growth. Course I reflects that rational approach. Course II rejects it without any supporting reason.Step 5: Conclude that only course of action I logically follows from the given statement. Verification / Alternative check: If an action has already been taken and is portrayed neutrally or positively, it is reasonable to treat similar future actions as acceptable, provided the same conditions hold. Here, nothing in the statement suggests that taking a loan from the Asian Development Bank created problems. Therefore, extending this practice to other ports with other agencies is a reasonable course. In contrast, a sudden blanket refusal of international assistance would be inconsistent and unsupported by the information given. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b (Only course of action II follows) is wrong because the statement supports the use of international assistance, not the rejection of it. Option c (Neither I nor II follows) is wrong because course I clearly aligns with the logic of the situation. Option d (Both I and II follow) is self contradictory, since the two courses directly oppose each other. Option e (None of these) is wrong because a specific valid course, I, clearly follows. Common Pitfalls: Candidates sometimes think any dependence on external funding is automatically negative. Logical reasoning questions do not ask for emotional or political preferences, but only for consistency with the given data. Another mistake is to think that if one route is used once, the opposite policy must now be adopted to avoid over dependence. However, the statement contains no evidence of any problem with the existing loan, so a blanket rejection is not justified. Final Answer: Only course of action I follows.

Question 7

It is stated that it is necessary to adopt suitable measures to prevent repetition of bad debts by learning from past experiences of mounting non performing assets in banks. In this course of action logical reasoning question, which of the following…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with banking, bad debts, and non performing assets. The statement highlights that banks have learned from the past problem of mounting non performing assets and that suitable measures are necessary to prevent repetition of bad debts. Two courses of action are proposed: stricter evaluation of eligibility before granting loans, and close supervision of the work for which the loan was granted to ensure repayment of instalments. Our task is to judge whether one, both, or neither of these courses logically follows from the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Banks have experienced mounting non performing assets in the past. There is a need to adopt measures that prevent similar bad debts in the future. Course of action I: Before granting loans, banks should evaluate the eligibility of customers strictly. Course of action II: The work or project for which the loan is granted should be supervised minutely on a regular basis to ensure payment of instalments. We assume that non performing assets arise from poor credit appraisal, weak monitoring, or both. Concept / Approach: Preventing bad debts involves two broad stages of control: pre sanction assessment and post sanction monitoring. Effective credit risk management requires rigorous checks before granting loans and regular follow up afterward. Any course of action that strengthens either stage is relevant. We must check whether the proposed courses directly address these stages and whether they are reasonable responses to the problem. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine course of action I. Stricter evaluation of loan eligibility includes assessing income, repayment capacity, credit history, collateral, and business viability. This directly addresses failures at the sanction stage, a major source of bad debts.Step 2: Examine course of action II. Even if the initial evaluation is sound, projects can fail due to mismanagement or diversion of funds. Close, regular supervision ensures that the loan is used for the intended purpose and that early warning signals of stress are detected.Step 3: Relate both courses to the statement. The statement calls for suitable measures to prevent repetition of bad debts. Strengthening both pre sanction and post sanction processes clearly qualifies as suitable and necessary measures.Step 4: Consider whether one course alone is sufficient. Stricter screening without monitoring can still lead to later slippages. Monitoring without good screening still allows weak borrowers in. Therefore using both is more consistent with the objective.Step 5: Conclude that both courses of action I and II logically follow. Verification / Alternative check: In modern risk management, banks adopt credit appraisal models and post sanction monitoring frameworks together. Regulatory guidelines also stress both aspects. The information in the statement calls for learning from past experiences, and experience shows that failures occur at both stages. Hence, a combination of strict eligibility checks and ongoing supervision is the most sensible. Using only one measure would not fully reflect the idea of learning comprehensively from past non performing assets. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (Only I follows) is incomplete, as it neglects the crucial role of monitoring after the loan is disbursed. Option b (Only II follows) is also incomplete, because monitoring alone cannot compensate for poor initial sanction decisions. Option c (Neither I nor II follows) is wrong since both actions directly address the causes of non performing assets. Option e (None of these) is wrong because a specific combination, both I and II, is clearly correct. Common Pitfalls: Some students view credit appraisal and monitoring as alternatives rather than complements. In examination questions, they sometimes choose only one course as correct because it looks more important. Another pitfall is ignoring the phrase learning from past experiences, which suggests a comprehensive response rather than a partial one. Recognising that prevention of bad debts is a multi stage process helps identify that both measures are necessary. Final Answer: Both course of action I and course of action II follow.

Question 8

Increasing levels of air pollution are creating serious health hazards for people living in cities. In this course of action logical reasoning question, consider the proposals that all industries should be shifted to the outskirts and that public tr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question addresses environmental policy and health in urban areas. The statement notes that increasing air pollution is creating health hazards for city residents. Two courses of action are suggested: shifting all industries to the outskirts of cities and converting all public transport vehicles to compressed natural gas, also known as CNG. The reasoning task is to evaluate whether one, both, or neither of these actions logically follows from the concern about health hazards caused by air pollution. Given Data / Assumptions: Air pollution in cities is rising. This increase is causing health hazards for people living in urban areas. Course of action I: All industries should be shifted to the outskirts of cities. Course of action II: Transport authorities should convert all public transport vehicles to run on CNG. We assume industries and vehicular emissions are major contributors to urban air pollution. Concept / Approach: Course of action questions require us to evaluate whether proposed steps are relevant to the stated problem and are broadly reasonable. Since the problem is air pollution leading to health issues, any course that significantly reduces major sources of pollutants can be considered. Industries and diesel or petrol based public transport are known sources of particulate matter and harmful gases. Reducing their impact within city limits aligns with the stated purpose. The fact that a measure is ambitious does not automatically make it invalid in such reasoning questions, as long as it targets the cause effectively. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Analyse the role of industries. Many industries emit smoke, gases, and fine particles. When located inside cities, these emissions directly affect residents nearby, increasing respiratory illnesses.Step 2: Evaluate course of action I. Shifting industries to the outskirts reduces concentrated industrial emissions within densely populated zones. This is a direct step toward improving urban air quality, though it must be properly zoned and regulated.Step 3: Analyse the role of public transport. Buses, taxis, and other vehicles using conventional fuels are major sources of urban air pollution.Step 4: Evaluate course of action II. Converting public transport to CNG significantly lowers emissions of harmful pollutants per vehicle. This is a widely accepted method for improving city air quality.Step 5: Connect both measures to the problem. Since both industry emissions and vehicular emissions are important contributors, acting on both sides provides a stronger, more comprehensive response to the health hazard.Step 6: Conclude that both courses of action I and II logically follow from the statement. Verification / Alternative check: Real world policies in many cities have indeed moved polluting industries out of central zones and promoted cleaner fuels such as CNG for public transport. These actions are not random; they are guided by the same logic that the question presents: reducing exposure of residents to harmful emissions. Therefore, from a reasoning perspective, accepting both actions as appropriate is consistent with known environmental strategies for dealing with urban air pollution. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (Only I follows) ignores the significant contribution of public transport emissions. Option b (Only II follows) fails to address industrial pollution inside the city. Option c (Either I or II follows) suggests that only one is needed, but both are relevant and complementary. Option e (Neither I nor II follows) is clearly wrong, since both actions directly target major sources of air pollutants. Common Pitfalls: Learners sometimes reject bold actions as impractical, forgetting that reasoning questions are about logical suitability rather than detailed feasibility studies. Another error is to assume that action on only one source is enough. In reality and in exam logic, multiple coordinated measures are often recommended when a problem has several major causes. Recognising that industries and vehicles both pollute air helps to see why both courses follow. Final Answer: Both course of action I and course of action II follow.

Question 9

A report states that vitamin E present in fresh fruits and vegetables is beneficial for the human body, but vitamin E taken in capsule form does not have the same effect. In this course of action question, which of the following steps should logical…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with health information and the proper response through courses of action. The statement explains that vitamin E from fresh fruits and vegetables is beneficial to the human body, but vitamin E in capsule form does not provide the same benefit. Two courses of action are proposed: banning sales of capsule vitamin E and encouraging people to take fresh fruits and vegetables to meet their vitamin E requirement. We must decide which of these recommendations logically follows from the given information and reflects a balanced public health response. Given Data / Assumptions: Vitamin E is essential for the human body. Vitamin E from fresh fruits and vegetables is beneficial. Vitamin E in capsule form does not have the same effect as vitamin E from fresh foods. Course of action I: Sales of capsule vitamin E should be banned. Course of action II: People should be encouraged to take fresh fruits and vegetables to meet the body requirement of vitamin E. We assume capsules may still be prescribed in special medical cases, but the statement does not discuss safety issues. Concept / Approach: In course of action reasoning, we test whether a proposed action is directly linked to the facts and whether it is proportionate and realistic. If a product is simply less effective, it does not automatically mean that it must be banned. Banning a product is justified when it is unsafe, seriously harmful, or fraudulent. Encouraging better alternatives is nearly always appropriate when there is clear evidence of superior benefit. Therefore, we see if the statement supports a ban or mainly suggests promoting natural sources. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine the key information. Natural vitamin E from fruits and vegetables works better than capsule vitamin E, which does not have the same beneficial effect.Step 2: Evaluate course of action II first. Encouraging people to consume fresh fruits and vegetables directly addresses the information that these are more beneficial sources. It is a positive, realistic health measure based on the statement.Step 3: Evaluate course of action I. Banning capsule vitamin E is an extreme step. The statement does not say that capsules are harmful, unsafe, or fraudulent; it only says that they do not provide the same benefit as natural sources.Step 4: Consider proportionality. Lack of equal benefit compared to natural foods is not enough to justify a ban. Many supplements are optional and may help specific individuals under medical supervision.Step 5: Conclude that only encouraging natural sources, that is course of action II, logically follows, while banning capsules does not. Verification / Alternative check: Public health agencies frequently issue advisories to increase consumption of fresh fruits and vegetables when studies show that whole foods work better than isolated supplements. However, banning a supplement usually requires strong evidence of danger, adulteration, or serious misuse, none of which is mentioned here. Thus, based on the information given, the most reasonable action is to promote natural vitamin E sources rather than prohibit capsules altogether. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (Only I follows) is wrong because a ban is not justified by the statement and would be an over reaction. Option c (Neither I nor II follows) is wrong because course II clearly follows as a positive health recommendation. Option d (Both I and II follow) is wrong as it unnecessarily includes a harsh measure that is not logically supported. Option e (None of these) is wrong since course II is valid. Common Pitfalls: A typical mistake is to assume that if one option is proven less effective, it must be banned. Reasoning questions require distinguishing between less effective and harmful. Another pitfall is ignoring the wording not the same effect and interpreting it as dangerous. Careful reading shows that the right logical response is to guide people toward the more beneficial alternative, not to impose an unjustified prohibition. Final Answer: Only course of action II follows.

Question 10

Indigenous tribes living near the Amazon forests are cutting down trees to meet their basic needs, which is severely affecting the ecological balance in that region. In this course of action logical reasoning question, consider whether the tribes sh…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on environmental protection and the rights of indigenous tribes. The statement explains that tribes living near the Amazon forests cut down trees to cover their basic needs. However, this activity is severely affecting the ecological balance of the area. Two extreme courses of action are suggested: forcibly shifting all tribes to urban areas or allowing them to continue cutting trees as they are not engaged in commercial exploitation. Our task is to decide whether either of these courses or both should logically follow from the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Indigenous tribes live near Amazon forests. They cut down trees to meet basic needs such as shelter, fuel, and small scale subsistence. This tree cutting is seriously disturbing ecological balance in the region. Course of action I: All such tribes should be forced to shift to urban areas. Course of action II: The tribes should be allowed to continue cutting trees, since they do so only for basic needs and not for commercial purposes. We assume ecological balance in the Amazon region is globally important and that tribal rights also matter. Concept / Approach: In course of action reasoning, we check whether proposed steps are reasonable, balanced, and directly related to solving the problem. Extreme measures that violate basic human rights or ignore the main issue are usually rejected. Here the core problem is ecological damage due to tree cutting. An effective course of action should try to protect the environment while respecting the needs of indigenous communities. We evaluate whether forced relocation or complete permission without regulation meets this balanced requirement. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine course of action I. Forcing all tribes to shift from their ancestral lands to urban areas would severely disrupt their culture, livelihood, and identity. The statement does not suggest that such a harsh step is necessary or acceptable.Step 2: Check if course I addresses the problem sensibly. While shifting people out might reduce tree cutting locally, it is not a humane or practical solution and creates new social problems.Step 3: Examine course of action II. Allowing them to continue cutting trees without restriction simply because their purpose is basic need does not solve the ecological imbalance mentioned in the statement.Step 4: Note that ecological impact depends on the total volume of tree cutting, not only on whether it is commercial or subsistence. Even non commercial use can be unsustainable if population and pressure have risen.Step 5: Therefore neither forcing urban relocation nor granting full permission is the correct logical response. A balanced course might involve controlled use, alternative resources, or community based conservation, but such options are not provided among the two courses. Verification / Alternative check: Real world approaches to such issues aim for sustainable use rather than total ban or unlimited permission. Governments and environmental agencies often work with tribes to promote alternative livelihoods, regulated harvesting, and conservation programmes. Since neither of the given courses reflects this balanced approach, we logically conclude that neither course I nor course II follows. Both are extreme and do not reasonably derive from the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option a (Only course of action I follows) is wrong because forced relocation violates rights and is not suggested by the statement as a justified or necessary step. Option b (Only course of action II follows) is wrong because permitting continued tree cutting unchanged does not address the ecological imbalance. Option c (Either I or II follows) is wrong as both are unacceptable extremes, and logical reasoning does not force us to choose between two clearly unsuitable options. Option d (Both I and II follow) is impossible because the two courses contradict each other. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to assume that in such questions one of the given extreme courses must be selected, even if both look unreasonable. The correct reasoning is that sometimes neither course is acceptable, especially when both conflict with core values or fail to address the problem in a balanced way. Another pitfall is focusing only on the fact that tribes cut trees for basic needs and ignoring the explicit statement that ecological balance is severely affected. Final Answer: Neither course of action I nor course of action II follows.

Question 11

The appearance of China made globes in Canada that show Jammu and Kashmir as not being a part of India has alarmed the Indian diaspora living there. In this course of action logical reasoning question, which of the following responses should logical…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question tests course of action reasoning in an international and diplomatic context. China made globes sold in Canada show Jammu and Kashmir as not being part of India. This has naturally alarmed the Indian diaspora there. Three courses of action are offered: lodging a complaint against the manufacturers, demanding an official apology from the Chinese government, and calling for a complete boycott of Chinese products in Canada. We must decide which response logically follows as a reasonable reaction to the inaccurate representation. Given Data / Assumptions: China made globes sold in Canada depict Jammu and Kashmir as not part of India. The Indian diaspora in Canada is alarmed by this misrepresentation. Course of action I: The Indian diaspora should lodge a complaint against the manufacturers for giving out inaccurate information. Course of action II: The Chinese government should issue an official apology to Indians. Course of action III: Canadian people should stop buying Chinese products altogether. We assume that the issue arises from how the product is designed, labelled, or approved. Concept / Approach: A sound course of action must be practical, proportionate, and directly connected to the problem. Lodging a complaint with the manufacturers or concerned authorities is a reasonable first step. Demanding a government level apology or calling for a complete boycott are far more extreme measures, especially when the statement does not clarify who approved the map content. Logical reasoning tasks usually favour measured, direct responses before diplomatic or economic escalations. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine course of action I. Lodging a complaint against the manufacturers or distributors is a direct way to highlight the inaccuracy and request correction. It is practical and proportionate.Step 2: Consider who can address packaging and map design. Manufacturers, importers, and regulatory bodies can change the globe representation or label it correctly upon receiving complaints.Step 3: Examine course of action II. Demanding an official apology from the Chinese government involves diplomatic channels and assumes direct intentional policy behind the specific product representation, which is not established by the statement.Step 4: Examine course of action III. Asking the entire Canadian population to stop buying Chinese products is an extreme economic step far beyond the problem of globe mislabelling. It is not a proportionate first response.Step 5: Conclude that only course of action I logically follows, as it is the most appropriate and direct way to address the inaccurate information. Verification / Alternative check: Reasonable escalation in such issues typically starts with complaints to companies, retailers, or consumer protection bodies. If those fail, further diplomatic or trade measures may be considered. However, the question asks what should be done based on the single piece of information given, not after many failed attempts. As such, lodging a complaint is the step that clearly and directly follows from the situation, while the other actions are disproportionate and not logically compelled by the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option b (Only course of action II follows) is wrong because the statement does not justify immediate demand for an official state level apology. Option c (Both I and II follow) is wrong as it combines a reasonable step with an unnecessary escalation. Option d (Both II and III follow) is wrong because both actions are too extreme and not grounded in the limited information given. Option e (None of these) is wrong since course of action I is clearly suitable. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes choose extreme retaliatory measures, thinking that they show patriotic firmness. In logical reasoning questions, however, the focus is on what is rational and justified by the given facts. Another pitfall is to treat every product related issue as a direct act of a government, which need not always be the case. Understanding proportional response is crucial in course of action problems. Final Answer: Only course of action I follows.

Course of Action Questions