Statement — Higher disposal costs encourage waste producers to seek cheaper ways to get rid of waste.\nCourses of Action:\nI. Increase disposal costs further.\nII. Bring down disposal costs.\nIII. Set up a committee to study the details and recommend measures.

Introduction / Context:
When disposal costs rise, illegal dumping or evasion becomes attractive. Sound actions should reduce incentives to cheat and design systems that ensure compliance at reasonable cost.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Raise costs higher.
• II: Reduce disposal costs.
• III: Study details and propose comprehensive measures.

Concept / Approach:
Further hikes (I) likely magnify evasion. Lowering costs (II) and improving convenience (door-to-door collection, pay-as-you-throw with caps, producer responsibility) can improve compliance. A committee (III) can calibrate fees, enforcement, and infrastructure (transfer stations, MRFs, tracking) based on data.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Diagnose elasticity of illegal dumping to fee levels.2) Reduce fees to a compliance-friendly level; increase monitoring/penalties for illegal disposal.3) Commission a study to optimize pricing, routes, and technology (GPS tracking, manifests).

Verification / Alternative check:
Many cities use modest fees with strict enforcement to balance cost recovery and compliance.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
I: counterproductive. Either: pretends symmetrically valid choices; data suggest the opposite. Neither: ignores the problem.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming higher price always improves outcomes; here it worsens evasion.

Final Answer:
Both II and III follow.