Question 1

Decision making — cyclone damage in hill areas and fiscal burden  Statement: More than 200 villages in a hill area of Uttar Pradesh have been severely damaged by a cyclone, imposing an extra burden of ₹200 crore on the State Government for relief an…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The scenario is a disaster-management and public-finance problem. We assess which actions are immediate, humane, and administratively reasonable given extensive cyclone damage in many villages and a large relief bill for the State Government. Given Data / Assumptions: Severe cyclone damage across 200+ villages in a hill region. Relief and rehabilitation cost estimated at ₹200 crore over normal budgets. State and Central Governments share disaster responsibilities; evacuation saves lives. Concept / Approach: In public emergencies, prioritize life safety and continuity of essential services, then funding. Evaluate each proposed action for immediacy, legality, proportionality, and broader impact on the economy and stakeholders. Step-by-Step Solution: I. Shift people to safer places: Evacuation is a textbook immediate measure to prevent casualties and is strongly justified. It follows.II. Seek Central Government support: Disaster relief commonly taps central funds/grants; this is practical and cooperative federalism. It follows.III. Levy a relief tax on the corporate sector: Ad-hoc taxation amid crisis can be counterproductive, slow to implement, and may require legislation and consultation. It is not an immediate, assured remedy; hence it does not necessarily follow. Verification / Alternative check: Why Other Options Are Wrong: None follows: incorrect because I and II are sound. Only II and III / Only I and III: wrongly include the relief tax while omitting evacuation or central support. None of these: not applicable since I and II are correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing long-term fiscal measures with urgent lifesaving steps. Policy instruments that are slow or contentious are generally not “immediate courses of action.” Final Answer: Only I and II follow

Question 2

Decision making — rising city pollution threatening inhabitants  Statement: Any further increase in city pollution from industrial effluents and automobile exhaust will pose a severe threat to inhabitants.  Which courses of action are appropriate? I…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The prompt signals an impending risk if pollution increases further. We must choose actions that are proportionate, enforceable, and targeted, avoiding extreme measures that create unreasonable social and economic disruption. Given Data / Assumptions: The city already faces high pollution; any additional increase will be dangerous. Key sources are industry (effluents) and automobiles (exhaust). Authorities can regulate licences and operating conditions. Concept / Approach: Look for preventive, sustainable policy responses. Distinguish between sensible regulation (licensing, standards) versus draconian blanket bans that ignore essential services and practical constraints. Step-by-Step Solution: I. Close all factories immediately: Overbroad and economically disastrous; essential goods and employment would be hit. This does not reasonably follow.II. Limit all automobiles to just four hours a day: Impractical and arbitrary. Public services, logistics, and emergencies would be harmed. This does not logically follow from the statement alone.III. Restrict issuing fresh licences: A forward-looking measure that caps growth of major sources while space is created for cleaner tech and standards. This is proportionate and follows. Verification / Alternative check: Best practice emphasizes emission norms, inspection/maintenance, fuel quality, congestion management, and permitting policies. Of the three, licensing control is the rational, measured step aligned with policy norms. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I: Excessive; the statement warns of “further increase,” not that current activity must cease. II: Operationally unrealistic and punitive without nuanced targeting. All follows / None follows: Both inconsistent with the above evaluation. Common Pitfalls: Believing only extreme measures solve environmental problems. Incremental regulatory levers often produce better compliance and stability. Final Answer: Only III follows

Question 3

Decision making — college coordination and student migration after being ousted  Statement: Lack of coordination between the University, its colleges, and authorities has resulted in students ousted from one college seeking migration to another.  Wh…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The problem cites coordination gaps that allow ousted students to migrate to another college within the same university. We must pick actions that directly solve that loophole, without imposing unnecessary structural overhauls unrelated to the stated cause. Given Data / Assumptions: Students expelled/ousted from one college are managing to migrate to another in the same university. The core issue is poor information flow and coordination among colleges and authorities. Concept / Approach: Choose the action that closes the information gap across campuses so that disciplinary decisions are visible university-wide. Be cautious about sweeping centralization or punitive units that may not address coordination itself. Step-by-Step Solution: I. Circulate ouster information to all colleges: This directly prevents re-admission elsewhere without scrutiny. It follows.II. University to control all admissions centrally: This may be overkill. Centralization alone does not guarantee better disciplinary information sharing, and it upends existing decentralized processes; not necessary to solve the specific problem.III. Create a section for strict action against anti-social activities: While discipline matters, the stated issue is coordination, not the absence of punitive capacity. This does not directly address the migration loophole. Verification / Alternative check: If every college is promptly notified of ousters, attempts to migrate can be screened during admission. This is a minimal, targeted fix consistent with the problem statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: II: Structural centralization is not required by the stated cause. III: Punitive focus without coordination still allows information gaps. Pairs including II or III dilute the targeted remedy. Common Pitfalls: Confusing cause (coordination failure) with effect (misconduct). The remedy must match the cause first. Final Answer: Only I follows

Question 4

Decision making — bonded labourers freed but awaiting rehabilitation  Statement: Over 27,000 bonded labourers have been identified and freed, yet they are still awaiting rehabilitation.  Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Identify more case…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question focuses on prioritizing humane, problem-focused policy responses. The issue stated is not the lack of identification, but the bottleneck in rehabilitation after liberation. Given Data / Assumptions: 27,000+ bonded labourers are already identified and freed. They are awaiting rehabilitation, which is the current bottleneck. Rehabilitation is essential for dignity, livelihood, and preventing relapse. Concept / Approach: We should address the identified gap (rehabilitation). Actions that worsen the humanitarian situation or divert focus from the stated gap should be rejected. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Identifying more cases does not solve the current backlog; it may increase pressure on limited rehab capacity. Hence it does not follow from the stated problem.II: Withholding freedom until facilities exist is ethically unacceptable and contrary to law and human rights; it does not follow.III: Removing impediments to speed and improve rehabilitation directly targets the core problem; it follows. Verification / Alternative check: Best practice sequencing: rescue/liberation → immediate support → rehabilitation/integration. If rehabilitation lags, fix that pipeline constraint. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I: Misaligned priority—addresses detection, not the stated backlog. II: Violates humanitarian principles; freedom should not be conditional. II and III together: tainted by II. Common Pitfalls: Thinking “more identification” is always good; here the binding constraint is rehabilitation capacity. Final Answer: Only III follows

Question 5

Decision making — school dropouts after withdrawal of mid-day meal  Statement: The number of dropouts from municipal schools has significantly increased after the withdrawal of the mid-day meal scheme.  Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Th…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The statement links an uptick in dropouts to the withdrawal of the mid-day meal scheme. We must prescribe actions that are both evidence-informed and learner-centric, discouraging steps that further reduce access to education. Given Data / Assumptions: Dropouts increased after mid-day meals were withdrawn. Mid-day meals are known to incentivize attendance, especially for low-income students. Policy revision and root-cause analysis are within the government’s remit. Concept / Approach: Consider immediate remedial action (reinstating proven support) and diagnostic investigation (to confirm causes and refine policy). Reject actions that exacerbate access problems. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Reconsider withdrawal: This directly addresses the suspected trigger and is a rational course of action.II: Closing schools reduces access and could worsen dropout rates. This does not follow.III: Conduct a detailed study: Even if reinstatement proceeds, rigorous analysis will validate causal pathways and guide complementary measures (attendance monitoring, outreach). This follows. Verification / Alternative check: Education policies commonly blend immediate safety nets with evaluation to calibrate interventions. Mid-day meals have strong empirical support for attendance/retention. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I: ignores the value of diagnostic evidence. Only II and III / All follow: wrongly include harmful school closures. None follows: incorrect because I and III are sound. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a single lever is sufficient; data-driven follow-through improves policy durability and fairness. Final Answer: Only I and III follow

Question 6

Decision making — price rise of essentials due to transporters’ strike  Statement: Prices of essential commodities have risen sharply in the past few days due to a strike called by the transporters’ association.  Which courses of action are appropri…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The problem is an economic-disruption scenario. We must choose actions that are lawful, proportionate, and effective at stabilizing supply, while avoiding measures that are coercive beyond due process or that escalate conflict. Given Data / Assumptions: Transporters’ strike has constrained supply, causing price spikes. The government can both negotiate and arrange alternative logistics. Civil liberties and labor laws constrain state responses to strikes. Concept / Approach: Look for a response that restores supply quickly without unlawful overreach. Negotiations and alternative supply chains are typical; blanket threats and mass imprisonment are neither necessarily legal nor constructive. Step-by-Step Solution: I. Ordering immediate withdrawal with “severe consequences”: This is heavy-handed and may not be lawful or effective. Negotiation and contingency planning are preferable.II. Immediate alternative arrangements: This is the most logical step to maintain adequate supply and stabilize prices; however, the option set provided does not include “Only II follows.”III. Declare strike illegal and jail leaders: This presumes illegality without due process and is extreme; it does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Since the clearly appropriate action is II alone and that combination is not among options A–D, the correct meta-choice per test logic is “None of these.” Why Other Options Are Wrong: A: Includes an unjustified threat in I. B: Includes unjustified criminalization in III. C and D: Both include III and/or I, which are excessive. Common Pitfalls: Assuming punitive action is always justified during strikes. Proportional, lawful steps that secure public interest (like alternative transport) are better first responses. Final Answer: None of these

Question 7

Decision making — mass failure in municipal schools (Xth Board exam)  Statement: A large number of municipal-school students failed the Xth Standard Board examination, causing frustration among students and parents.  Which courses of action are appr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Poor results indicate systemic issues—pedagogy, staffing, resources, or academic support. We must select actions that diagnose and remedy performance shortfalls without reducing access to education. Given Data / Assumptions: Many students failed the Xth Board exam. Teacher vacancies may impair instructional quality. Authorities can review performance and implement improvements. Concept / Approach: Combine immediate quality interventions (filling vacancies, academic support) with a management review to identify specific gaps. Avoid actions that harm equity or capacity (e.g., closing schools without cause). Step-by-Step Solution: I: Review and initiate measures—necessary to understand and fix root causes (training, materials, remediation). Follows.II: Fill teachers’ vacancies—addresses an obvious resource constraint affecting teaching-learning. Follows.III: Close some schools—this reduces capacity and access and is not logically implied by the statement. Does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Education recovery plans typically include vacancy filling, teacher development, remedial classes, and monitoring—consistent with I and II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B/C/D: Each includes III, which is unwarranted. E: Incorrect because I and II are clearly appropriate. Common Pitfalls: Choosing capacity-reducing measures when the problem is quality and support. Final Answer: Only I and II follow

Question 8

Decision making — floods risk from incessant rain and silted river bed  Statement: Incessant rain for several days has created overflow and flood risk because the river bed is full of silt and mud.  Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Shift …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a disaster-response and mitigation problem. The conditions—prolonged rain, overflow, and silted river bed—require immediate life-safety actions, public communication, and post-event mitigation to reduce future risk. Given Data / Assumptions: Incessant rain has created an overflow/flood threat. The river bed is clogged with silt and mud, aggravating flooding. Authorities can evacuate, warn, and later dredge/clear silt. Concept / Approach: Adopt a phased approach: protect life first (evacuation), communicate clearly (alerts), then implement mitigation once conditions allow (desilting) to reduce recurrence. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Evacuate vulnerable populations—directly prevents loss of life. Follows.II: Broadcast warnings—enables timely self-protective actions by residents. Follows.III: Clear silt/mud after waters recede—addresses root hydraulic constraint, reducing future overflow. Follows. Verification / Alternative check: Standard flood management includes evacuation orders, public alerts, and post-flood river training/desilting. All three are aligned with best practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/B/C/D exclude at least one sound measure. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that some actions (like desilting) must await safe conditions; this is why III specifies “after receding.” Final Answer: All follow

Question 9

Decision making — chloroquine resistance in some mosquito strains  Statement: Some strains of mosquito have become resistant to chloroquine, a widely used anti-malaria medicine.  Which courses of action are appropriate? I. Stop selling chloroquine. …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Drug resistance complicates malaria treatment. The statement says some mosquito strains transmit parasites no longer responsive to chloroquine. We need actions that preserve effective therapy and improve case management without unnecessarily discarding useful drugs. Given Data / Assumptions: Chloroquine remains effective for some malaria contexts but not for all (resistance exists). Alternative medicines or combinations may be needed (R&D and guideline updates). Clinical management benefits from identifying likely vectors/parasite species to tailor treatment. Concept / Approach: Public-health logic favors targeted diagnostics and development of effective alternatives. A blanket ban on chloroquine would deprive clinicians of a valid option where it still works. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Stop selling chloroquine—overbroad; it may still be indicated where sensitive strains prevail. Does not follow.II: Develop new medicine—appropriate response to resistance. Follows.III: Check malaria patients to identify causative context/species/likely resistance to guide therapy—improves outcomes. Follows. Verification / Alternative check: Health systems typically retain existing drugs where effective, add alternatives, and enhance diagnostics/surveillance to direct therapy. This aligns with II and III only. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I and III / All follow: wrongly include an unnecessary blanket stop on chloroquine. None follows: incorrect because II and III are sound. Common Pitfalls: Assuming any resistance means total ineffectiveness; resistance is often partial and location-specific. Final Answer: Only II and III follow

Question 10

Decision reasoning – banking interest rates and competitive response Statement: Many private sector banks have reduced the interest rate on housing loans compared to public sector banks. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Raise the case before the re…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a Courses of Action problem from logical reasoning. We are given a factual situation about interest-rate competition between private sector banks and public sector banks. We must judge which proposed actions are pragmatic and logically connected to the stated problem without introducing assumptions beyond the statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Private sector banks have reduced housing-loan interest rates. Public sector banks currently have comparatively higher rates. No illegality or regulatory breach is stated. Objective is to avoid loss of customers by public sector banks. Concept / Approach: In Courses of Action, select responses that are feasible, ethical, and directly aim to address the stated issue. Avoid actions based on unwarranted allegations or those that presume facts not in the statement. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate I: Asking the regulator to investigate public banks because they “cannot follow such reduction” presumes illegality or incapacity. The statement gives no hint of any violation. Hence I is not warranted.Evaluate II: Matching the competitive pricing (if feasible) is a direct, logical response to retain market share. II is reasonable.Evaluate III: Differentiation via advertising unique strengths (service, safety, features) is also a legitimate response to competition. III is reasonable.Since II and III are alternative strategies, at least one of them should be taken; the test’s intent is to mark them as mutually exclusive “either” choices rather than both together as mandatory. Verification / Alternative check: Competition can be met either by price moves or by value communication. Both are acceptable paths; requiring both simultaneously is not necessary. Why Other Options Are Wrong: All follow / I-related combos: I is based on an assumption of wrongdoing and is not supported. “None”: II or III clearly offers a logical course. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a regulatory violation without evidence, or assuming only price cuts solve competition. Final Answer: Only either II or III follows

Question 11

Decision reasoning – municipal mineral water pricing vs. private suppliers Statement: The Deputy Mayor of city Z proposes to install a municipal mineral-water plant and supply bottles at Rs 6 per litre, versus Rs 10 per litre from local private comp…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A municipal plan proposes cheaper bottled mineral water. We must evaluate courses of action that are logical responses rather than predictions or unnecessary consequences. Given Data / Assumptions: Municipality proposes Rs 6/L mineral water; private sellers price at Rs 10/L. No data on costs, capacity, losses, or customer behavior is given. Tap-water schemes are a separate civic utility function. Concept / Approach: In Courses of Action, accept actions that are necessary steps directly supported by the statement. Reject mere speculations about outcomes (closures, losses) and actions that are unrelated or extreme (stopping tap water). Step-by-Step Solution: I: “Private companies will have to close” is a conjecture, not an action the civic body should take. It is not a course of action and is not logically compelled.II: “Provide for losses in the budget” presumes the project will incur losses. The statement gives no evidence of projected loss; hence it does not follow.III: Stopping tap-water schemes is unrelated and harmful to public health. The bottled-water initiative does not logically imply discontinuing piped supply. Verification / Alternative check: Reasonable courses would involve feasibility studies, cost analysis, and quality control—not stated here. None of I–III necessarily follow from the statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any option containing I, II, or III accepts speculation or an extreme step, which the statement does not warrant. Common Pitfalls: Confusing predictions or consequences with actionable, justified steps. Final Answer: None of these

Question 12

Decision reasoning – monsoon shortfall preparedness Statement: Meteorological department forecasts less rainfall during next year’s monsoon. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Set up a water authority immediately for proper management of water resour…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: With a forecast of below-normal monsoon, sound governance requires proactive measures for water management and agricultural planning to reduce risk of scarcity and crop failure. Given Data / Assumptions: A credible forecast indicates less rainfall next monsoon. Water resources are finite and must be planned prudently. Farming choices can be adjusted toward less water-intensive crops. Concept / Approach: Good courses of action are preventive, feasible, and directly address the expected shortfall across governance (institutional setup), utilities (rationing), and agriculture (crop choice). Step-by-Step Solution: I: Establishing or empowering a water authority coordinates allocation, storage, reuse, and conservation. It is a logical strategic response.II: Controlled reduction (rationing) in regular supply helps stretch limited resources during shortage, a direct operational response.III: Advising farmers to shift to low-water crops (millets, pulses, short-duration varieties) is a targeted mitigation to safeguard livelihoods and food security. Verification / Alternative check: Each measure tackles a distinct facet: policy/coordination (I), urban/utility management (II), and rural/agricultural adaptation (III). Together they form a coherent plan for the predicted shortfall. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any subset omits a necessary dimension of preparedness. “None” contradicts the obvious need for planning under credible forecast information. Common Pitfalls: Delaying action until scarcity peaks; focusing only on urban supply and neglecting agriculture. Final Answer: All follow

Question 13

Decision reasoning – festival season spike in crime Statement: There was a spurt in criminal activities in the city during the recent festival season. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Police should immediately investigate the causes of this increas…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Festival seasons often increase crowding and opportunities for theft or disorder. The question asks which courses of action are legitimate and proportionate responses to the observed spike in crime. Given Data / Assumptions: There was a recent surge in criminal activity. The surge coincided with the festival season. Police can deploy targeted measures and investigations. Concept / Approach: Appropriate actions should be investigative and preventive while respecting due process. Measures must be based on cause analysis and proportionate policing, not arbitrary arrests. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Investigating causes (modus operandi, hotspots, deployment gaps) is essential to craft effective countermeasures. This follows logically.II: Planning precautions for future festivals (extra patrols, CCTV, crowd control, awareness drives) directly addresses recurrence risk. This follows.III: Arresting “known criminals” preemptively without specific charges violates due process and civil liberties; preventive detention requires legal thresholds. As stated, III does not logically follow. Verification / Alternative check: Smart policing emphasizes intelligence-led deployment and lawful, evidence-based action. I and II satisfy these criteria. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “All follows”: III is overbroad and legally problematic. “None”: contradicts the clear need for investigation and precaution. “II and III”: retains the flawed III. Common Pitfalls: Equating prior records with grounds for arrest, ignoring the need for evidence and judicial oversight. Final Answer: Only I and II follow

Question 14

Decision reasoning – inadequate college seats after XII results Statement: Many students who passed Class XII could not get college admission because the number of seats is grossly inadequate. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Make the XII evaluatio…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The problem is a supply–demand mismatch in higher-education seats. Valid courses of action must address capacity constraints ethically and effectively. Given Data / Assumptions: Demand for college seats exceeds supply. Students have legitimately passed Class XII under the current evaluation system. Government can influence capacity creation and policy incentives. Concept / Approach: Good actions target root causes (insufficient seats) rather than manipulating outcomes (artificially reducing pass rates) or proposing inequitable fixes. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Making exams tougher merely suppresses demand by filtering otherwise capable students; it is unfair and avoids solving the real issue. Does not follow.II: Creating capacity via encouraging new colleges (with regulated quality) directly addresses the shortage. This follows logically.III: Asking rich families to send wards abroad is discriminatory and impractical as policy; it does not systematically fix capacity. Does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Structural capacity expansion (II) benefits all cohorts and aligns with long-term national goals; I and III are misdirected. Why Other Options Are Wrong: I: Ethically and academically unsound. III: Inequitable and not a policy lever. Combinations including I or III retain flawed elements. Common Pitfalls: Confusing gatekeeping with quality improvement; true quality comes from better teaching, infrastructure, and standards, not arbitrary toughness. Final Answer: Only II follows

Question 15

Decision reasoning – board exam papers reportedly evaluated by students Statement: A TV channel reports that answer papers of a State Board exam were evaluated by students of the same standard using model answers, as instructed by examiners. Courses…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The integrity of high-stakes examinations is paramount. The reported practice, if true, undermines fairness and standards. Appropriate courses of action must secure immediate remediation and accountability. Given Data / Assumptions: Report alleges student-based evaluation using model answers, directed by examiners. The allegation compromises evaluation quality and fairness. The Board is responsible for corrective steps. Concept / Approach: Immediate actions should halt compromised processes and restore integrity. Long-term solutions should be considered separately, not as an immediate remedy in this context. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Temporarily suspending involved examiners pending inquiry prevents further compromise and enables investigation. This follows (subject to due process).II: Confiscating affected scripts and re-evaluating by qualified teachers restores fairness to impacted students. This follows.III: Computerized evaluation may suit objective-type answers but not most board papers with descriptive responses. Exploring this, while useful long term, is not a necessary or logical immediate action tied to the present breach; hence it does not “follow” from the statement’s urgency. Verification / Alternative check: Immediate containment (I) and remediation (II) map directly to the harm described. III is strategic but not compelled by this specific incident. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Only I / Only II: incomplete—both accountability and re-evaluation are needed. Only III / All: overstate the role of computerization here. Common Pitfalls: Confusing urgent corrective measures with long-term reforms; both are valuable, but the question asks what follows now. Final Answer: Only I and II follow

Question 16

Decision reasoning – roads damaged by incessant rain Statement: All major city roads have deteriorated due to two months of incessant rain. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Deploy additional traffic staff to regulate vehicular movement. II. Immedia…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Damaged roads pose safety and congestion risks. Multiple coordinated actions can mitigate immediate hazards and restore mobility. Given Data / Assumptions: Widespread deterioration after prolonged rain. Traffic flow and safety are affected. Authorities can deploy staff, repair roads, and inform users. Concept / Approach: Effective incident management combines control (traffic regulation), remediation (repairs), and communication (warnings) to reduce accidents and delays. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Additional traffic staff manage bottlenecks and diversions, reducing collision risk. Logical and immediate.II: Repairs address the root problem; prompt patchwork and resurfacing are necessary. Logical.III: Sign boards alert motorists to hazards and allow route/time adjustments. Logical and low-cost. Verification / Alternative check: All three steps are complementary: operational control, corrective maintenance, and timely public information. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any subset omits a useful, feasible measure with clear benefit. “None” contradicts clear municipal responsibilities. Common Pitfalls: Choosing only repairs and ignoring short-term traffic management and communication. Final Answer: All follow

Question 17

Decision reasoning – highway robbery on the A–B super expressway Statement: There have been several highway-robbery incidents on the super expressway between cities A and B in recent months. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Immediately set up polic…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public safety on highways requires targeted enforcement. We must select actions that are practical, proportionate, and directly address the threat without causing undue disruption or relying on unrealistic expectations. Given Data / Assumptions: Multiple robbery incidents along a specific expressway segment. Local administration can deploy police resources. The expressway is an important transport artery. Concept / Approach: Actions should deter and detect crime promptly. Avoid excessive measures (full closure) and avoid shifting responsibility to untrained civilians. Step-by-Step Solution: I: Police pickets, patrols, and checkpoints are standard preventive and deterrent measures. This follows logically.II: Closing the expressway is extreme, economically harmful, and unnecessary when enforcement can be increased. Does not follow.III: Training “more and more people” to tackle robbers is impractical and risky; civilians should not be asked to confront armed criminals. Does not follow. Verification / Alternative check: Enhanced policing (visible presence, rapid response, surveillance) directly addresses the issue without crippling mobility. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Including II imposes disproportionate costs. Including III endangers civilians and is not a responsible policy. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking drastic closures for necessary safety measures; underestimating the risks of civilian confrontation. Final Answer: Only I follows

Question 18

Decision reasoning – validity period for transfer forms (investment schemes) Statement: The Institute has fixed a validity period of one year for transfer forms for some of its listed schemes. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. The Institute should c…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Policy changes affecting investors require transparent communication. The question asks which actions are necessary and logically connected to implementing a new validity period for certain schemes. Given Data / Assumptions: A one-year validity applies to transfer forms for some listed schemes. Stakeholders need clarity on duration and coverage. There is no requirement stated for prior consultation. Concept / Approach: Good governance principles emphasize timely disclosure and unambiguous instructions so investors can act within deadlines and understand applicability. Step-by-Step Solution: I: While consultation can be beneficial, it is not necessary to implement a validity period. The statement does not imply consultation is required. Hence I does not follow.II: Informing investors about the validity period is essential for compliance and fairness. This follows.III: Communicating the exact list of covered schemes prevents confusion and misapplication. This follows. Verification / Alternative check: For any rule with scope and deadline, notice (II) plus scope clarity (III) are the minimal required actions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options including I assume a procedural requirement not stated. Only III omits the critical duty to inform about the duration. Common Pitfalls: Overvaluing consultation as mandatory; in many regulatory contexts, communication and clarity are the core obligations. Final Answer: Only II and III follow

Question 19

Decision reasoning – airport corridor congestion during peak hours Statement: Vehicular traffic has increased so much that it takes at least two hours to travel between the city and the airport during peak hours. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Do…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must choose responses that are feasible, proportionate, and within the control of road authorities to reduce peak-hour congestion on the airport corridor. Given Data / Assumptions: Severe congestion during peak hours on the city–airport link. Multiple categories of vehicles use the corridor. There exist link roads that can be used for diversions. Concept / Approach: Courses of action should rely on standard traffic-management tools under local jurisdiction and avoid overbroad restrictions or steps beyond the authority’s remit. Step-by-Step Solution: I: A blanket ban on non-airport traffic is over-restrictive, hard to enforce, and may unduly harm local access. Not a balanced first-line response.II: Diverting part of the load via link roads is a common, feasible traffic-management measure that can be implemented during peak windows. This follows.III: Regulating flight schedules implicates aviation regulators and airlines; road authorities typically cannot control this. It is beyond scope and not a primary road-traffic solution. Verification / Alternative check: Traffic engineering prioritizes demand management and routing (II) before extreme restrictions (I) or cross-agency measures (III). Why Other Options Are Wrong: I: Disproportionate and impractical to police continuously. III: Outside direct jurisdiction and not a road-management tool. Combinations including I or III inherit these flaws. Common Pitfalls: Jumping to extreme bans or assuming coordination with aviation scheduling is readily achievable by traffic police. Final Answer: Only II follows

Question 20

Public health action during monsoon — water-borne diseases spike Statement: There is a considerable increase in the number of persons affected by water-borne diseases during the monsoon period. Courses of Action: (I) Raise the question in the Legisl…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: During monsoons, contamination of surface and groundwater often leads to outbreaks of water-borne diseases such as diarrhea, typhoid, and cholera. This “courses of action” question asks which responses are immediately logical and effective given the stated surge in cases. Given Data / Assumptions: Disease incidence has already risen during the monsoon. Objective is to reduce new infections and manage current cases. Course I: Raise the issue in the Legislative Assembly. Course II: Provide public information on safe drinking water (boiling, chlorination, point-of-use hygiene). Course III: Equip hospitals to handle increased monsoon caseloads (beds, ORS, IV fluids, antibiotics, lab capacity). Concept / Approach: Immediate, actionable public-health measures should directly mitigate risk and impact. Risk communication and facility preparedness are primary outbreak responses. Legislative debate can be useful but does not ensure timely operational control during an ongoing spike. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess Course II: Targeted information lowers exposure by promoting boiling/filtration, safe storage, and chlorination. This directly addresses transmission; therefore it follows.Assess Course III: Scaling clinical readiness (triage, supplies, infection prevention) reduces morbidity and mortality; therefore it follows.Assess Course I: Legislative discussion may be long-winded and indirect; during an acute spike, executional measures take precedence. Hence I does not necessarily follow immediately. Verification / Alternative check: Public-health playbooks emphasize risk communication, water treatment, surveillance, and surge capacity in facilities—matching II and III. Why Other Options Are Wrong: All follow: Overstates the urgency of a legislative step when operational actions are needed now.Only I and II / Only I and III: Retain a slow or indirect item (I) while omitting a critical operational step.None follows: Contradicts standard outbreak management. Common Pitfalls: Confusing policy debate with crisis response; immediate risk reduction and care capacity matter most. Final Answer: Only II and III follow

Course of Action Questions