# Logical Reasoning - Course of Action - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Course of Action - Section 3 (Q.No. 2)
Directions to Solve

In each question below is given a statement followed by three courses of action numbered I, II and III. You have to assume everything in the statement to be true, then decide which of the three given suggested courses of action logically follows for pursuing.

2.

Statement: A train derailed near a station while moving over a bridge and fell into a river, resulting in the death of 65 people.

Courses of Action:

1. The Railway Authorities should clarify the reason of the accident to the Government.
2. The Government should allocate funds to compensate the destruction caused.
3. The protection walls of the bridge should be made strong enough to avoid such accidents.

Only I and II follow
Only II and III follow
Only III follows
All follow
None of these
Explanation:
What is necessary is the preventive measures to protect the passengers, steps to avoid re-occurrence of such events and pay the sufferers adequate compensation. So, only course III follows.
Discussion:
10 comments Page 1 of 1.

Rkkk said:   2 years ago
I think D should be the answer.
(1)

HARSH said:   2 years ago
If action III doesn't solve the problem then it should not be a course of action @Trishul.

Abhishek said:   6 years ago
Yes, Agree @Trishu.

Trishul said:   8 years ago
Problem: Train derailed (on a bridge or not, doesn't matter).

Solution should be towards replacing those tracks and ensuring proper maintenance.

The first step to achieving it is railways investigating and preparing a report to brief the government because action ca a=only be taken after the situation is thoroughly clarified. Action I takes care of that.

Loss of life and property should also be compensated which is action II. Action III is also important to prevent the situation exacerbating in case another derailment happens but it doesn't solve the problem of derailment itself.

Chaitanya palepu said:   9 years ago
Any how practically building wall strong enough isn't a solution for the issue. Cause if train details there the no wall strong enough to stop it. So it is important to compensate for destruction in sense of passengers and safety of the bridge and track for further use. Option A should be the solution.
(1)

Mahavir said:   9 years ago
The government should allocated funds to relatives of people who have affected and also make sure that this accidents won't happen in future.

Mona Shah said:   10 years ago
The explanation itself states, "steps to avoid re-occurrence of such events and pay the sufferers adequate compensation".

Hence either B or D should be the answer.

Ankur said:   10 years ago
Here I think fourth option is correct because government will definitely allocate funds to affected people.

Sindhu said:   10 years ago
The government should allocate funds as the reconstruction and strengthening of the bridge is also a compensation for the destruction and it is the responsibility of the government to pay the compensations to the families of people who died. Also the exact reason for accidents so that such accidents can be avoided in future.

Ganesh alat said:   1 decade ago
But we have to prevent derailing of train from track, whether if we make stronger bridge because of derailing there is still injury to people.