Decision reasoning – highway robbery on the A–B super expressway Statement: There have been several highway-robbery incidents on the super expressway between cities A and B in recent months. Courses of Action to evaluate: I. Immediately set up police pickets along the expressway to prevent robbery. II. Immediately close down the expressway until the robbers are apprehended. III. Train more people on how to tackle robbers. Which course(s) logically follow(s)?

Introduction / Context:
Public safety on highways requires targeted enforcement. We must select actions that are practical, proportionate, and directly address the threat without causing undue disruption or relying on unrealistic expectations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Multiple robbery incidents along a specific expressway segment.
• Local administration can deploy police resources.
• The expressway is an important transport artery.

Concept / Approach:
Actions should deter and detect crime promptly. Avoid excessive measures (full closure) and avoid shifting responsibility to untrained civilians.

Step-by-Step Solution:
I: Police pickets, patrols, and checkpoints are standard preventive and deterrent measures. This follows logically.II: Closing the expressway is extreme, economically harmful, and unnecessary when enforcement can be increased. Does not follow.III: Training “more and more people” to tackle robbers is impractical and risky; civilians should not be asked to confront armed criminals. Does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
Enhanced policing (visible presence, rapid response, surveillance) directly addresses the issue without crippling mobility.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Including II imposes disproportionate costs.
• Including III endangers civilians and is not a responsible policy.

Common Pitfalls:
Mistaking drastic closures for necessary safety measures; underestimating the risks of civilian confrontation.

Final Answer:
Only I follows