Introduction / Context:
When an existing heritage or notable structure deteriorates due to lack of funds, the immediate, logical action is to resource conservation and repairs—not to redesign or rebuild anew, nor to re-investigate already identified causes unless evidence is unclear.
Given Data / Assumptions:
- Stated cause: paucity of funds.
- Objective: restore/maintain the existing structure.
- Course I: Create a new architectural design—implies replacement or redesign, not relevant to conservation.
- Course II: “Find out the reasons” — but the reason has already been officially identified as lack of funds.
- Course III: Provide grant funding to improve the structure—directly addresses the cause.
Concept / Approach:
- Remedial actions should target the diagnosed cause. If funds are inadequate, allocate resources with accountability safeguards.
- Redesigning is unnecessary and could erase heritage value.
Step-by-Step Solution:
Reject I: Off-target; it does not preserve the existing asset.Reject II: Redundant in this context; the reason is already stated as paucity of funds.Accept III: Grants enable conservation work, addressing the gap.
Verification / Alternative check:
Conservation practice prioritizes stabilization, repair, and maintenance funding before any re-design considerations.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
II and III: Includes an unnecessary investigation.I and III: Adds unjustified redesign.I only / II only: Do not solve the funding problem.
Common Pitfalls:
Assuming a new design is a fix; conservation usually seeks to preserve, not replace.
Final Answer:
Only III follows
Discussion & Comments