In the question below is given a statement followed by two courses of action.…
2024
In the question below is given a statement followed by two courses of action. A course of action is a step or administrative decision to be taken for improvement, follow-up, or further action in regard to the problem, policy, etc. On the basis of the information given in the statement, you have to assume everything in the statement to be true and then decide which of the given courses of action logically follows.
Statement: The officer-in-charge of a company had a hunch that some money was missing from the safe.
Courses of action:
I. He should get it recounted with the help of the staff and check it against the balance sheet.
II. He should inform the police.
- A.
if both I and II follow
- B.
if only I follows
- C.
if either I or II follows
- D.
if only II follows
Show answer & explanation
Correct answer: B
In 'statement and course of action' questions, a course of action follows only if it is a reasonable, practical administrative step that can be taken immediately on the basis of what is stated, without assuming facts beyond it. When a statement describes a mere suspicion, doubt, or hunch rather than a confirmed fact, the proportionate course is to verify internally before taking any drastic or external action; escalating straight to an outside authority on an unconfirmed suspicion overreaches what the statement supports.
Here, the officer only 'had a hunch' that money was missing - nothing confirms an actual loss yet. Recounting the money with the staff and cross-checking it against the balance sheet is exactly this kind of verification: an immediate, practical, internal step that neither assumes nor ignores the suspicion. Reporting the matter to the police, by contrast, escalates to an external authority before the underlying suspicion has even been checked, which is disproportionate to what the statement establishes.
Contrast with the other courses of action:
if both I and II follow - treats an unconfirmed hunch as if it already justified police involvement, which the statement does not support.
if either I or II follows - presents recounting and involving the police as interchangeable alternatives, when only the verification step is supported at this stage.
if only II follows - skips the verification step entirely and escalates directly to the police on an unconfirmed hunch.
Only the recounting-and-cross-check step is proportionate to a hunch that has not yet been confirmed - so only course I follows.