Statement : Courts take too long in deciding important disputes of various…

Concept: In a Statement-and-Courses-of-Action question, a course of action "follows" only if it is a practical, administratively feasible step that directly addresses the cause behind the problem stated. A course need not fix the entire issue by itself — it is rejected only if it is impractical, unrelated to the stated cause, or merely repeats the problem without offering any remedy.

Application: The stated problem is delay — courts take too long to decide important departmental disputes, i.e. the existing route to resolution is too slow.

1. Course I orders courts to speed up matters. This is a routine, practical administrative directive that shortens the time taken on the existing route, so it addresses the delay directly.

2. Course II grants departmental officers power to settle their own disputes. This diverts future disputes away from courts altogether, cutting the very load that causes the backlog, so it also addresses the delay directly.

Both courses target the same root cause — time taken to resolve disputes — from two different, independently workable angles (speeding up the existing channel vs. opening a faster alternate channel), so both follow.

Cross-check against the other choices:

• "Only I follows" ignores that empowering officers is just as direct and feasible a remedy as speeding up the courts.

• "Only II follows" ignores that ordering courts to expedite pending matters is itself a standard, practical administrative step.

• "Neither I nor II follows" would require both steps to be impractical or unrelated to the delay, which contradicts the problem as stated.