Macro-Regional Administrative Groupings

The second and third statements are accurate; the boundaries of the zones took into account natural divisions, river systems, communication means, cultural affinity, and economic development. The first statement is historically false because the 1956 Act divided the country into only *five* zones (Northern, Central, Eastern, Western, and Southern). The sixth zone (North Eastern Council) was created 15 years later by a separate act in 1971.

The Assertion is true; the councils aimed to foster organic regional cooperation. Reason 1 correctly supports this by highlighting the use of natural and economic factors (like river systems) to draw the zones. Reason 2 is historically false because the 1956 Act created only *five* zones, not six, and they were geographically asymmetrical.

The second methodology is correct. The States Reorganisation Act of 1956 explicitly mandated that while forming the five zones, factors like natural divisions, river systems, means of communication, cultural affinity, and requirements of economic development must be taken into consideration to foster regional cooperation.

Only two claims are valid (Statements 2 and 3: assessing river systems and shared communication/culture). Statement 1 is false because the 1956 Act created only five administrative zones; the sixth was added much later in 1971.