Statement: There was a spurt in criminal activities in the city during the…

In a Statement–Course of Action question, a course of action only ‘follows’ if it is a direct, practical, and reasonable administrative step in response to the stated problem — one that does not need an assumption the statement itself doesn't support, and is not itself an arbitrary or unjustified action against people whose connection to the stated problem the statement never establishes.

Applying this to the reported spurt in criminal activity during the festival season:

• Investigating the causes of the sudden rise is a direct, reasonable response: understanding why incidents increased is the natural first step before any further action, so this follows.

• Taking precautions in future festival seasons to prevent a repeat is likewise a direct, practical response drawn straight from the stated problem, so this follows too.

• Arresting people only because they are already on record as offenders — without any evidence connecting them to this particular spurt — is an arbitrary pre-emptive step rather than a reasoned response, and it would still not touch a spurt caused by a first-time or previously unidentified offender, so this does not follow.

Testing the other combinations confirms this: dismissing every action overlooks that the investigative step is a normal, necessary response; and any combination built around the arrest action wrongly treats a pre-emptive, evidence-free arrest of already-known offenders as a reasoned official response, which the statement gives no grounds for. So exactly the first two courses of action follow.