In the following question, a statement is followed by two courses of action…
202420242024
In the following question, a statement is followed by two courses of action numbered I and II. 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 the stated goal.
Statement: Ministry of Tourism in its one of the reports revealed that due to recent social disturbances in the country, the number of foreign tourists has decreased considerably, which resulted in a financial loss of Rs.100 crore.
Courses of Action:
I. The Government should provide financial support to the tourism sector.
II. Foreign tourists should be informed that they visit the country at their risk.
- A.
If only Course of Action I follows.
- B.
If only Course of Action II follows.
- C.
If either Course of Action I or II follows.
- D.
If neither Course of Action I nor II follows.
Attempted by 1 students.
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: D
Concept:
In "Statement and Courses of Action" questions, a suggested course of action logically follows only if it is a practical, immediate step that directly resolves the actual problem causing the stated situation, without creating a bigger problem of its own.
A step that only offsets or compensates for a resulting consequence — without touching the actual problem that produced it — is not a valid course of action, and neither is a step that actively works against the stated goal; each proposed step must be judged on whether it fixes the cause, not merely reacts to its effect.
Application:
The statement's actual cause of the tourist decline is the social disturbances (a law-and-order concern); the Rs.100 crore loss is only a consequence of that cause, not the cause itself.
Course of Action I (financial support to the tourism sector) compensates the sector for its monetary loss, but it does nothing to remove the social disturbances that are keeping foreign tourists away — it treats the symptom, not the cause, so it does not follow.
Course of Action II (warning tourists that they visit at their own risk) would actively discourage more tourists from visiting, working against the very goal of reviving tourism — a self-defeating step, so it does not follow either.
Cross-check:
Since neither action addresses the actual root cause (the social disturbances) or helps restore tourist confidence, and a valid course of action must do exactly that, both I and II fail the test — confirming that neither course of action follows.