Statement: Severe drought is reported to have set in several parts of the…

Concept: In 'Statement and Courses of Action' reasoning, a suggested course of action is judged to follow only if it is a practical, directly actionable step that addresses the problem stated — not a broad administrative or policy measure, and not a step that is merely well-intentioned without being an immediate remedy.

Application: The statement reports a severe drought that endangers both people and cattle — a fast-moving, life-threatening emergency. Sending food, water and fodder right away directly supplies what is needed to survive the crisis, so it qualifies as a course of action that follows. Arranging financial assistance, on the other hand, is a slower, administrative measure — money alone does not put water or fodder in front of people and cattle immediately, so it does not qualify on its own.

Contrast the options:

• "Only I follows" treats financial assistance alone as sufficient, but it does not directly meet the immediate survival need created by the drought.

• "Only II follows" matches the analysis above — an immediate, practical relief step that directly addresses the emergency.

• "Either I or II follows" would apply only if the two actions were interchangeable alternatives serving the same purpose; here they differ in directness and urgency, so this framing does not fit.

• "Neither I nor II follows" would apply only if no proposed action addressed the crisis at all, which is not the case here.

Result: Only Course of Action II follows.