Effect: The temple at a popular religious site looks deserted, with the number of devotees dropping sharply. Which of the following is the most likely cause of this effect?

Introduction / Context:
This is a cause and effect problem where the effect is clearly described: a temple at a religious site wears a deserted look and the number of devotees has reduced to a trickle. We must select the most plausible cause from the options. Such questions test your ability to connect real life behaviour with likely reasons, using common sense rather than formulas.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Effect: The temple has very few devotees compared to earlier, and the place appears deserted.
• We consider each option as a potential cause and check whether it reasonably explains the reduced footfall.
• We assume devotees are normal, rational people who care about safety and convenience.
• No other information about the temple or the devotees is provided.

Concept / Approach:
A good cause for an observed effect should be directly connected, strong, and immediate. If a temple suddenly becomes unsafe or is believed to be unsafe, people will avoid visiting it to protect their lives, even if they are religiously inclined. On the other hand, factors such as internal fund levels or the presence of qualified priests do not directly and immediately cause devotees to stop visiting, especially if they are not widely known or do not affect safety or access.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1. Read the effect: the temple is deserted and devotees are very few.2. Check option A: a structural engineer has declared the structure unsafe, which directly threatens visitors safety.3. If devotees know the structure is unsafe, they will naturally avoid visiting, making the temple look deserted. This strongly explains the effect.4. Check option B: depletion of funds is an internal financial issue; it might affect maintenance, but devotees may not even be aware of it immediately.5. Check option C: a donation for renovation would normally increase activity, not reduce it.6. Check option D: having qualified priests is a positive feature and should attract, not repel, devotees.7. Therefore, option A is the most logical cause of the deserted look.

Verification / Alternative check:
We can verify by asking which option would most quickly change devotees behaviour. A public safety warning from a structural engineer is highly likely to be reported in news or by word of mouth, immediately reducing footfall. Depleted funds may result from fewer devotees, not necessarily cause them. A large donation and availability of priests are positive developments that should increase or sustain attendance. That confirms that option A is the best answer.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Depletion of funds: More likely an effect of fewer devotees, not a cause of the drop in numbers.Donation for renovation: Expected to improve facilities and attract more people, the opposite of the observed effect.Qualified priests: A positive feature that supports rituals, not a factor that empties the temple.Introduction of new festivals: Would generally draw more crowds, again opposite to the effect.

Common Pitfalls:
Students sometimes overthink and choose options related to money or administration, imagining complex stories. In these questions, always choose the cause that has the clearest and most direct link to the given effect. Safety concerns and access problems are strong causes for reduced attendance at any public place, especially when they are officially certified by experts.

Final Answer:
The most likely cause is that a structural engineer declared the temple unsafe.