Decision reasoning – board exam papers reportedly evaluated by students Statement: A TV channel reports that answer papers of a State Board exam were evaluated by students of the same standard using model answers, as instructed by examiners. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Immediately suspend all such examiners from their official positions. II. Immediately confiscate all such papers and get them re-evaluated by qualified teachers. III. Explore possibilities, however remote, of getting these exam papers evaluated by computerized machines. Which course(s) logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
The integrity of high-stakes examinations is paramount. The reported practice, if true, undermines fairness and standards. Appropriate courses of action must secure immediate remediation and accountability.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Report alleges student-based evaluation using model answers, directed by examiners.
• The allegation compromises evaluation quality and fairness.
• The Board is responsible for corrective steps.

Concept / Approach:
Immediate actions should halt compromised processes and restore integrity. Long-term solutions should be considered separately, not as an immediate remedy in this context.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Temporarily suspending involved examiners pending inquiry prevents further compromise and enables investigation. This follows (subject to due process).II: Confiscating affected scripts and re-evaluating by qualified teachers restores fairness to impacted students. This follows.III: Computerized evaluation may suit objective-type answers but not most board papers with descriptive responses. Exploring this, while useful long term, is not a necessary or logical immediate action tied to the present breach; hence it does not “follow” from the statement’s urgency.

Verification / Alternative check:
Immediate containment (I) and remediation (II) map directly to the harm described. III is strategic but not compelled by this specific incident.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Only I / Only II: incomplete—both accountability and re-evaluation are needed.
• Only III / All: overstate the role of computerization here.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing urgent corrective measures with long-term reforms; both are valuable, but the question asks what follows now.

Final Answer:
Only I and II follow