Statement: Orissa and Andhra Pradesh have agreed in principle to set up a…

In a Statement–Courses-of-Action item, a suggested course of action “follows” only when it is a practical, reasonable response that can be justified from what the statement itself establishes — it must build on evidence the statement actually gives, and it must not rest on a claim the statement itself contradicts.

Here, the statement reports that Orissa and Andhra Pradesh have themselves agreed, in principle, to set up a joint control board specifically to achieve better control, management and productivity of their shared multipurpose projects. That agreement is real evidence that a joint control board is a workable way to manage inter-state project-coordination problems. Since other neighbouring states can face the same kind of coordination problem over their own shared projects, recommending that they also consider such a board is a reasonable extension of what the statement has already established. Course I therefore follows.

Course II recommends blocking the proposed board on the ground that “such joint boards are always ineffective.” But the statement’s own premise is that the two states are proceeding with this very board in order to secure better management and productivity — that is, they judge it an effective step. Course II’s justification is contradicted by the statement itself, so Course II does not follow.

Checking the other options against the same reasoning:

• Only II follows — would require the statement to support the claim that joint boards are ineffective, but the statement’s own action (two states adopting one) points the opposite way.

• Either I or II follows — fits only when the two suggested courses are mutually exclusive alternatives forced by the statement, so that exactly one must be chosen over the other. Here, extending the arrangement to other states and blocking the current board answer unrelated questions, so this either-or coupling does not describe their relationship.

• Neither I nor II follows — would require Course I to have no basis in the statement, but the two states’ own agreement to adopt the arrangement is exactly the basis Course I needs.

Hence, only Course I follows.