Statements: A. Budgetary allocation for building a better railway network, such as constructing new railway lines, has increased. B. There has been a substantial drop in the number of passengers opting for air travel.

Introduction / Context:
This cause and effect question tests whether you can recognise when two events are better viewed as effects of a broader scenario rather than as directly causing each other. One statement reports an increase in budgetary allocation for railways. The other statement reports a substantial drop in the number of passengers opting for air travel. We must determine the most reasonable relationship between these two trends.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement A: The Government has increased budget allocation for building a better railway network, including new railway lines.
• Statement B: There has been a substantial drop in air travel passengers.
• We assume both statements are recent developments.
• No explicit causal link is mentioned in the problem.

Concept / Approach:
Sometimes two events are not cause and effect in a direct sense but instead both arise from a third underlying factor. Here, the Government investment decision and the behaviour of air passengers could both be responses to a common situation, such as an economic slowdown, rising fuel costs, or a policy shift towards more affordable transport. The task is to judge whether a direct one way cause effect link is strong, or whether the common cause explanation is more natural.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1. Consider Statement A: increasing railway budget aims to expand or improve railway services.2. This may be due to Government priorities such as promoting cheaper, mass transport or improving connectivity.3. Consider Statement B: fewer passengers are choosing to travel by air.4. This drop might be caused by increased air fares, economic difficulties, or concerns that make people prefer cheaper modes of travel.5. It is unlikely that simply increasing railway budget, which takes time to translate into actual services, directly and immediately causes a substantial drop in air travel.6. It is more reasonable that both A and B are responses to a common factor such as high aviation fuel prices or a focus on economical public transport.

Verification / Alternative check:
If we tried to interpret Statement A as the cause and Statement B as the effect, we would be saying that the increase in railway budget alone caused people to stop flying. However, budget allocation is a long term investment, and passenger behaviour does not change dramatically just because a budget is announced. Similarly, if Statement B were the cause and Statement A its effect, it would mean that because fewer people are flying, the Government is immediately investing more in railways, which may be partially true but is not clearly indicated. The neatest fit is that both developments are outcomes of a larger policy or economic situation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Statement A is the cause and Statement B is its effect: Too direct and ignores other factors affecting air travel demand.Statement B is the cause and Statement A is its effect: Also speculative and not directly supported by the text.Independent causes: They likely stem from related economic or policy conditions, so treating them as totally independent is less convincing than a common cause.No relation: This ignores the broader context that both concern modes of transport and may be linked to similar macro conditions.

Common Pitfalls:
Many candidates tend to force a direct cause effect relationship whenever two statements mention related sectors like railways and aviation. Another common error is to ignore the possibility of a common cause. In competitive exams, when two trends appear in the same domain but neither clearly triggers the other, always test whether both can be viewed as effects of a larger economic, political or social factor.

Final Answer:
Both the statements A and B are effects of some common cause.