Statements: A. The Government has decided to roll back the recent hike in the prices of cooking gas and kerosene. B. Some ministers resigned in protest against the hike in prices of cooking gas and other petroleum products.

Introduction / Context:
This cause and effect question concerns Government pricing decisions and political reactions. Statement A says that the Government has rolled back a price hike on cooking gas and kerosene. Statement B says that some ministers resigned in protest against that price hike. We must determine which is the cause and which is the effect or whether some weaker relationship holds.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement A: Government reverses or rolls back the earlier increase in prices of cooking gas and kerosene.
• Statement B: Some ministers resigned in protest against the price hike on cooking gas and petroleum products.
• We assume that the resignations happened after the price hike but before or around the time of the rollback.
• The Government is sensitive to political pressure created by ministerial resignations.

Concept / Approach:
The logical chain in such scenarios generally runs as follows: initial decision to raise prices leads to strong protests, including resignations, which in turn forces the Government to reconsider and roll back the hike. The question focuses on the relationship between the resignations and the rollback, not between the original hike and the resignations. Therefore, we must see whether Statement B can reasonably be viewed as the immediate and principal cause of Statement A.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1. The Government first hikes prices of cooking gas and kerosene (implied background event).2. In response, some ministers resign in protest, as described in Statement B.3. Political resignations create serious pressure, signal dissent inside the ruling group, and can destabilise the Government.4. To reduce this pressure and calm public and political anger, the Government decides to roll back the price hike, as stated in Statement A.5. Therefore, the rollback (A) is best seen as an effect of the ministers resignation protest (B), which is the immediate and principal cause.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider the reverse interpretation. If A were the immediate and principal cause and B its effect, it would mean that ministers resigned because the Government reversed the hike, which is illogical. No minister would normally resign in protest against a reduction in prices that benefits consumers. Another option suggests that B is not the immediate cause but only a remote or indirect effect. However, the question clearly hints that the resignations were a strong protest directly linked to the hike and that the Government rolled back prices after such protests, making B the immediate and principal cause of A.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
A is the immediate cause and B is its effect: This contradicts the normal political sequence of protest leading to policy change.A is an effect but B is not its immediate and principal cause: Weakens an obviously strong causal link that the question is highlighting.B is an effect but A is not its immediate and principal cause: Reverses the direction wrongly.No relation: Clearly incorrect, because both statements are explicitly about the same price hike and resulting political action.

Common Pitfalls:
One error is to confuse the original price hike (not directly mentioned) with the rollback described in Statement A. Students may also overlook the political influence of ministerial resignations and think they are just symbolic. In reasoning questions, the pattern is consistent: strong protests, especially from within the Government, are powerful immediate causes for policy reversals. Recognising that pattern helps in many similar questions.

Final Answer:
A is the effect and B is its immediate and principal cause.