Logical Reasoning - Course of Action - Discussion

In each question below is given a statement 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.

Give answer

  • (A) If only I follows
  • (B) If only II follows
  • (C) If either I or II follows
  • (D) If neither I nor II follows
  • (E) If both I and II follow.


Statement: Four districts in State A have been experiencing severe drought for the last three years resulting into exodus of people from these districts.

Courses of Action:

  1. The government should immediately start food for work programme in the district to put a halt to the exodus.
  2. The government should make since efforts to provide drinking/potable water to these districts

[A]. Only I follows
[B]. Only II follows
[C]. Either I or II follows
[D]. Neither I nor II follows
[E]. Both I and II follow

Answer: Option E


The exodus can be stopped by providing the people conditions conducive to living. So, both the courses follow.

Dishaa Omkumar said: (Feb 18, 2011)  
What is the meaning of exodus?

Tarun Singh said: (Apr 1, 2011)  
How can people"work" in the maccacre of a Drought...!!

Kasa Praveen said: (Jul 23, 2011)  
Since, there will be people of all age groups (particularly more age), they cant work in that age . so,i agree with option E as it provides also work for young ones...

Deepali said: (Oct 7, 2012)  
What if there is already something like a food for work programme? - which means the opportunity to work and gain something out of it.

Here the question is about drought, not about the existing or non existing opportunities of other sort- indirect solutions.

Kalyan said: (May 2, 2013)  
How are they supposed to work in a place where drought is prevailing?

Tom said: (Oct 20, 2013)  
Reported error - people are moving due to lack of water, not due to lack of food or employability. A scheme to start a food for work programme means that there will be food or work or whatever, it does not deal with the fact there is a drought. In simplest of forms. They need water so they move, you offer them food/money/both you still aren't offering water.

Louise Cassidy said: (Oct 28, 2013)  
People are moving due to lack of water, and it is lack of water preventing them growing food, therefore only need water to stop moving.

Drought is only a lack of water. Not Food.

Chris said: (Nov 26, 2013)  
Exactly what @Tom and @Louise said!

There is exodus (mass departure) because of the drought, the question doesn't say anything about a shortage of food or work, so I don't understand how option I follows?

Pranit Jaiswal said: (Sep 16, 2014)  
OPTION I not follows only because there is no meaning of starting food for work program. Because the person who can't work will not get the food. So OPTION I is completely wrong.

But I don't agree with TOM, LOUISE and CHRIS. Because when there is condition of drought then not only people face the problems regarding drinking water but also face the problem regarding the water needed for the farming/agricultural needs which will also affect the production of food.

Ekta said: (Feb 28, 2015)  
But @Parnit is it mentioned that its an agricultural city or there are farmers nothing is specifically mentioned. So we cannot relate food with later. Hence only option 2 follows.

Hemant said: (Mar 30, 2015)  
E is the correct option.

Option 1: Since its drought food and water is of main priority.

Option 1: Provides food.

Option 2: It provides water to all.

Jeffrey Loehr said: (Jul 18, 2015)  
Whoever is writing these is obviously not paying attention to their own questions. Maybe they are making up similar questions to already made questions.

If the sentence suggests drought. That means water, not food. I think the correct answer is the editor of these questions needs to be fired.

Chris said: (Jul 19, 2015)  
I answered that neither follow. There is no implication that the exodus SHOULD be stopped. If there is an area with permanent drought then why do we assume the best course is to put resources into persuading people to live there.

Andy said: (Dec 4, 2015)  
I agree with @Jeffrey Loehr.

If we are to consider a statement to be true, we must necessarily only think about that one sentence and not imagine other problems. This is not logical, atleast.

Manish said: (Feb 16, 2016)  
Drought means not only shortage of water but also failure of crops, unemployment etc. How can only supply of water can cover up the loss.

Terren said: (Sep 22, 2016)  
To me, this doesn't make sense that either logically follow. The condition says there is a drought that is causing the residents to leave, it does not mention food scarcity or drinking water as the cause, just drought. Drought could mean dust, lack of green space, poor air quality.

1. It is never stated that food is short, only water. Perhaps food is widely available in the region with water conservative crops and other methods of sustainable farming.

2. DRINKING water scarcity is not mentioned, just drought in those 4 districts. How can anything be assumed if not mentioned?

Nolram said: (Dec 16, 2017)  
There seems to be a problem with statement II- "The government should make since efforts to provide drinking/potable water to these districts".

Vaishnavi said: (Apr 20, 2018)  
According to me, the answer has to be option B.

Akash said: (Feb 17, 2019)  
It says drought not famine.

Correct answer: b.

Post your comments here:

Name *:

Email   : (optional)

» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.