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.
9.
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:
- The government should immediately start food for work programme in the district to put a halt to the exodus.
- The government should make since efforts to provide drinking/potable water to these districts
Answer: Option
Explanation:
The exodus can be stopped by providing the people conditions conducive to living. So, both the courses follow.
Discussion:
22 comments Page 1 of 3.
Terren said:
7 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?
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?
(2)
Pranit Jaiswal said:
9 years ago
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.
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.
Tom said:
1 decade ago
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.
Jeffrey Loehr said:
8 years ago
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.
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.
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.
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.
(1)
Deepali said:
1 decade ago
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.
Here the question is about drought, not about the existing or non existing opportunities of other sort- indirect solutions.
Chris said:
8 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.
(1)
Chris said:
1 decade ago
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?
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?
Andy said:
8 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.
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.
(1)
Louise Cassidy said:
1 decade ago
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.
Drought is only a lack of water. Not Food.
Post your comments here:
Quick links
Quantitative Aptitude
Verbal (English)
Reasoning
Programming
Interview
Placement Papers