A course of action question describes a problem and offers two or three proposed actions. You must decide which action, if any, is a proper course of action: a step that follows from the problem and would actually help.
The wording is often “which of the following is a possible course of action” or “which step, if taken, would follow”. The exam rewards actions that address the stated problem directly. It punishes dramatic, irrelevant, or already-assumed responses, and it punishes the temptation to discuss the problem rather than act on it.
A good course of action is a single test with four checks. The action must be feasible, relevant, direct, and proportionate.
What this model omits: it does not consider whether other solutions exist. The exam asks whether this action follows from the problem, not whether it is the only possible response.
Discard the grand and the vague. The classic weak options are sweeping statements rather than steps: “the government should be more careful”, “everyone should be educated about this”, “strict action should be taken”. These name a sentiment, not an action, and they cannot be executed as stated.
| Proposed action | Verdict | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Set up a drainage inspection team for the flooded area | Good | Specific, feasible and directly aimed at the problem |
| Ban all construction in the district | Bad | Extreme and out of proportion to the stated problem |
| People should be more responsible | Bad | A sentiment, not an action; nobody can carry it out |
| Warn residents near the river to move to higher ground | Good | A concrete step that addresses the immediate risk |
| Punish the officials named in the report | Bad | Depends on facts not given; may be irrelevant to the problem |
| Increase the frequency of water testing | Good | Feasible and directly relevant to the stated concern |
Do not import facts. An action that only makes sense if you assume extra facts not in the passage is not supported. If the passage never mentions a cause, an action aimed at that cause is speculative.
Reject the already-assumed. Sometimes an option states a fact or a goal already given in the problem rather than a step. Restating the problem is not a course of action.
Problem: “Several students in the hostel have fallen ill after eating in the canteen, and inspections found the kitchen unsanitary.”
Proposed actions: (A) temporarily close the canteen for cleaning and medical inspection; (B) tell the affected students to be more careful about what they eat; (C) shut down all hostels in the city indefinitely.
(A) is a good course of action. It is feasible, aimed directly at the unsanitary kitchen the passage mentions, and proportionate to the incident.
(B) is bad. It shifts responsibility onto the victims and does nothing about the unsanitary kitchen the inspection actually found. It is vague and misdirected.
(C) is bad. It is extreme out of all proportion, affects people with no connection to the problem, and the passage gives no basis for it.
The credited action is the one that a sensible authority could carry out tomorrow, aimed at the specific problem named in the passage.
What makes a proposed action a proper course of action?
Problem: “A factory is discharging untreated waste into the river.” Which is a good course of action?
Why is “strict action should be taken against the guilty” usually a weak course of action?
Problem: “Power cuts are disrupting evening study in a neighbourhood.” Which action best fits?
Without looking back: what are the four checks for a good course of action, and what are the two classic weak shapes?
The answer: feasible, relevant, direct and proportionate; the classic weak shapes are the vague sentiment with no actor, and the extreme or disproportionate step.
Fill in the blanks from memory:
A proper course of action is and directly relevant to the problem. It must be , not extreme. A statement such as people should be more responsible is weak because it is a rather than a step. An option that merely restates the problem is not an .
Problem: “Shopkeepers in the market report a rise in pickpocketing, and the police patrol ends at seven in the evening.” Proposed actions: (A) extend the patrol beyond seven in the evening; (B) close the market after seven; (C) advise shoppers to be more alert.
(A) is a good course of action. It is feasible, directly addresses the gap the passage names, and is proportionate to the problem. The passage itself points to the patrol ending at seven, which makes the extension the natural response.
(B) is bad. It punishes the market as a whole for the actions of thieves, is disproportionate to the problem, and the passage gives no basis for shutting the market down.
(C) is weak. It shifts responsibility onto shoppers, does not address the patrol gap or the pickpockets, and gives no concrete step to be carried out. It is advice as sentiment rather than an action on the stated problem.
The chosen action is the one tied to the detail the passage supplied. When a passage mentions a specific gap such as the patrol time, an action that closes that gap is almost always the credited course of action.
You have now met four reasoning question types: assumptions, conclusions, arguments and courses of action. The next lesson examines a fifth kind of claim — causal claims — and the trap of treating correlation as causation.