Statement: On an average, about twenty people are run over by trains and die…

Concept: In Statement–Course of Action questions, a suggested course of action follows only if it is a practical, proportionate step that a reasonable authority would take as a direct response to the problem described — not if it is an extreme, sweeping measure with disproportionate side-effects, and not if it is trivial or already implied by the statement.

Application: The statement reports about twenty deaths a day from people crossing railway tracks at level crossings. Course I proposes closing all level crossings nationwide — level crossings exist so that road traffic (vehicles, pedestrians, animals) can cross the tracks at grade, so shutting every one of them would cut off road access on a massive scale: a disproportionate, extreme reaction that goes far beyond what the stated problem calls for. Course II proposes heavily fining anyone caught crossing after the gates are closed — closed-gate crossing is a specific, especially hazardous form of the unsafe crossing behaviour the statement describes, so a targeted, enforceable penalty on it is a proportionate deterrent aimed directly at reducing such deaths, making it a reasonable course of action.

Cross-check: Applying the standard test — would a prudent policymaker actually adopt this as the immediate response? — course I fails (impractical, extreme, disrupts transport nationwide, disproportionate to the problem) while course II passes (targeted at a specific hazardous behaviour, practical, directly enforceable). So only course II follows.

• “Only I follows” treats the extreme measure of closing every level crossing nationwide as the answer, overlooking that it is disproportionate and impractical next to a targeted fine on rule-breakers.

• “Either I or II follows” assumes the two proposed actions are comparable, mutually exclusive alternatives of similar weight — but a nationwide closure of every crossing and a targeted fine on gate-breakers are not equivalent options, so they cannot be paired as interchangeable alternatives here.

• “Neither I nor II follows” would require each proposed measure to independently fail as a reasonable, actionable response; a blanket rejection of both without weighing each proposal on its own specific terms draws a stronger conclusion than the evidence supports.