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: The kharif crops have been affected by the insects for consecutive three years in the district and the farmers harvested less than fifty percent of produce during these years.

Courses of Action:

  1. The farmers should seek measures to control the attack of insects to protect their crops next year.
  2. The Government should increase the support price of kharif crops considerably to protect the economic interests of farmers.

[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


Clearly, the problem demands taking extra care and adequate precautions to protect crops from insects and extending help to farmers to prevent them from incurring huge losses. Thus, both the courses follow.

Dhilip said: (Feb 14, 2012)  
How does government be responsible for the poor maintenance of farmers?

Why should govt increase support price?

Ayush said: (Mar 12, 2013)  
Government has to take care of the people.

Do you mean to say that if there is a theft in your house then why should police search for the thieves and waste their time for your carelessness?

Mark said: (Sep 15, 2013)  
Not enough evidence for II. The statement didn't mentioned that farmers are in huge loss.

Farmers may increase the crops price to ensure they are in gain or the farmers themselves are already gaining huge profit even insects affected.

Randy said: (Feb 2, 2014)  
EVERYONE in the USA. Knows that if the government raises prices on a particular commodity that it means more money for the government; call it support price or anything you want but that farmer or any other citizen isn't going to see dime one of that money. We all know if the government raises prices on anything only politicians & corporate bigwigs are going to line their pockets with that money. Sad but true!

Keyur said: (Aug 21, 2014)  
And this is the problem in only one district. So should government.

Be liable to increase price for all just because the farmers of one district weren't able to manage their crops?

Kunal said: (Sep 25, 2014)  
How I follows, if farmers are themselves capable of finding the solution then they would have done done 2-3 years ago. Because problem is continuing from three years.

Uday said: (Apr 7, 2015)  
We have to take the remedy to avoid the crops being affected, their is no meaning in increasing the support price value of the crops.

And @Ayush police has to help for us, yes may be due to our carelessness their is theft in our house, but never police will give you the amount or they will pay you for the damage.

In the same way govt even has to provide insecticides yeah ok, but there is no meaning in raising the value of the crops due to the failure from three consecutive years, no way related.

Siddharth Chandel said: (Sep 17, 2017)  
As mentioned, The pest attack problem exists within a District. It's not a generic problem which the whole nation is facing.

So increasing the MSP for all the farmers of the nation/even state won't be a viable/practical option.

Thus only 1 Action follows ideally!

Charan Rawat said: (Feb 7, 2018)  
How, does it imply that Govt must increase procurement prices? Second assumption is not implicit.

Post your comments here:

Name *:

Email   : (optional)

» Your comments will be displayed only after manual approval.