Directions for Q: In each of the question below is given a statement followed…
202520252025
Directions for Q: In each of the question below is given a statement followed by three courses of action numbered I, II and III. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow up or further action in regard to the problem, policy, etc. On the basis of information given in the statement, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true. Then decide which of the three given suggested course(s) of action logically follow(s) worth pursuing.
Statement : A large number of tribal inhabitants are found to have been suffering from various diseases due to exposure to radioactive waste near the uranium mine.
Courses of Action:
I. The Government should immediately close down the mine.
II. The Government should immediately take steps to save local people from exposure to radioactive waste.
III. The tribals should be rehabilitated at a safer place.
- A.
Only I follows
- B.
Only III follows
- C.
Only II follows
- D.
Only II and III follow
Attempted by 2 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept: A course of action is valid only if it is a specific, practical step that follows directly and immediately from the problem described in the statement, and is proportionate to it -- an administratively extreme or disruptive step does not qualify, even if it addresses the same problem, while a direct, feasible, measured step does. Everything in the statement is assumed true, and each suggested action is judged on this proportionality-and-practicality test alone.
Application: Evaluating each suggested course against this test:
I -- Immediately closing the mine: shutting down a mine outright is a severe administrative and economic step; it is not a proportionate immediate response, so it does not follow.
II -- Taking immediate steps to protect people from radioactive exposure: this directly and practically addresses the ongoing harm described in the statement, so it follows.
III -- Rehabilitating the tribals at a safer place: this is a practical, direct response to the exposure problem that removes the affected population from further harm, so it follows.
Cross-check: Weighing the three actions against each other confirms this reading -- an extreme step like closure carries administrative and economic costs disproportionate to what the statement supports, while protecting people from exposure and relocating them are both measured, feasible responses an administration would reasonably take without needing any further justification.
Correct Ans: Only II and III follow.