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 voluntary organisations from the next Five Year Plan and has communicated that all such organisations should raise funds to meet their financial needs. Courses of action: I. Voluntary organisations should collaborate with foreign agencies to raise funds. II. Voluntary organisations should explore other possible sources of financial support so that they can continue their activities without government aid.

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.