In the following question, a statement followed by three courses of action…

202420242024

In the following question, a statement followed by three courses of action numbered I, II and III are given. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true and on the basis of the information given in the statement, decide which of the suggested courses of action logically follow(s) for pursuing.

Statement:

Sugar mills have said that they will not be able to pay the minimum price fixed by the government for sugarcane for the next season.

Courses of Action:

I. The government should appoint a committee to look into the matter.

II. A notice should be sent to all sugar mill owners to abide by the decision made by the government.

III. Disciplinary action should be taken against all those sugar mill owners who are ready to violate the government's decision.

  1. A.

    Only I

  2. B.

    Only II and III

  3. C.

    Only I and III

  4. D.

    All I, II and III

Attempted by 2 students.

Show answer & explanation

Correct answer: A

Concept: In a Statement and Courses of Action item, a suggested course of action logically follows only if it is a practical, proportionate response to what is actually stated - without assuming facts not given, without treating a stated constraint as wilful defiance, and without escalating straight to enforcement or punishment when the concern is systemic rather than an isolated case.

Application: The statement records sugar mills - the mills as a whole, not one or two - anticipating that they will be unable to pay the price the government has fixed for the next season. That is a shared economic concern raised in advance, not a decision already made that some mills are refusing to follow.

  • Course I - appoint a committee to look into the matter: this is a fact-finding step, not enforcement, and it fits a concern raised by the entire industry rather than by an isolated mill. It follows.

  • Course II - send a notice to all mill owners to abide by the government's decision: this assumes the mills are refusing a decision already made, but the statement describes an anticipated payment difficulty for next season, not a current act of defiance. It does not follow from what is given.

  • Course III - take disciplinary action against violators: this assumes non-compliance has already occurred and needs to be punished, when the statement records mills flagging a future difficulty, not a violation that has taken place, and it would apply across an entire industry rather than to isolated offenders. It does not follow.

Cross-check: If the government skipped straight to a compliance notice or disciplinary action for every mill over a shared, stated financial constraint, and the constraint turned out to be genuine, it would have penalised an entire industry without ever examining the claim - the outcome a sound first response is meant to avoid. This confirms that the fact-finding step alone is the natural next action.

Hence, only course of action I follows: the government should appoint a committee to look into the matter.

Explore the full course: Accenture Preparation