Cause–Effect Analysis:\nI) Activists are strongly opposing the construction of a large shopping mall at the city center.\nII) Shopping malls are witnessing increasing footfall but decreasing revenue.

Introduction / Context:
This item tests whether two seemingly related urban-economic statements stand in a direct cause–effect chain or are better explained as separate effects of different underlying causes. We must avoid importing unstated assumptions such as “protests always depress mall revenues.”

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) Activists are opposing the building of a large central shopping mall.
• II) Shopping malls show rising footfall but falling revenue.
• No numerical link, timeline alignment, or locality match is provided between I and II.

Concept / Approach:
In cause–effect questions, prefer direct, necessary, and specific causal ties. If a statement could occur for many reasons unrelated to the other statement, treat them as effects of independent causes, unless the stem tightly couples them (same place, same time, explicit mechanism).

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Statement I may be an effect of urban activism, environmental concerns, heritage zoning, traffic/parking fears, or civic land-use debates.2) Statement II (higher visits but lower revenue) can arise from deep discounts, window-shopping behavior, showrooming to e-commerce, shift to food/entertainment, or lower conversion per visitor.3) There is no explicit mechanism showing I → II or II → I; they plausibly stem from distinct causes.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if protests occasionally hurt local sales, II generalizes to “shopping malls” without tying to the specific mall of I or to the same city/time. Hence, a general retail trend (II) cannot be safely pegged as the effect of a local protest (I).

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option (a) assumes I depresses revenue; not established. Option (b) supposes revenue patterns cause activism; speculative. Option (c) marks both as independent causes, but each is phrased as an outcome. Option (e) is unnecessary since (d) fits.

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing correlation with causation; overgeneralizing a local protest to system-wide revenue behavior.

Final Answer:
Both statements are effects of independent causes.