Logical Reasoning - Course of Action - Discussion

Discussion Forum : Course of Action - Section 1 (Q.No. 9)
Directions to Solve

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

Only I follows
Only II follows
Either I or II follows
Neither I nor II follows
Both I and II follow
Answer: Option
The exodus can be stopped by providing the people conditions conducive to living. So, both the courses follow.
22 comments Page 1 of 3.

Shri said:   1 year ago
According to me, Drought means not having food or water, if they had water they could use it to grow crops and use it for their own benefit.

M Taqi Shah said:   3 years ago
In drought there people only face the lack of food, not water so only 1 is correct.

Pratham said:   3 years ago
When the problem the question brings up is drought, the answer should obviously be B.

The status of jobs and living conditions other than the fact that there is no water is not explicit enough. If they're leaving because of the drought then they'll stay if there's water.

Akash said:   5 years ago
It says drought not famine.

Correct answer: b.

Vaishnavi said:   6 years ago
According to me, the answer has to be option B.

Nolram said:   7 years ago
There seems to be a problem with statement II- "The government should make since efforts to provide drinking/potable water to these districts".

Terren said:   8 years ago
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?

Manish said:   8 years ago
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.

Andy said:   9 years ago
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.

Chris said:   9 years ago
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.

Post your comments here:

Your comments will be displayed after verification.