Statements: I. The Government has decided to hold a single common entrance test for admission to all medical colleges in India. II. A State Government has debarred students from other states from applying for seats in medical colleges in that state.

Introduction / Context:
This cause and effect reasoning question deals with educational policy decisions. One statement describes a national level decision to conduct a single common entrance examination for admission to all medical colleges in India. The other statement describes a state level decision to bar students from other states from applying to its medical colleges. We must decide how these two policy moves are logically related, if at all.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: The central Government has introduced a single common entrance test for all medical colleges across India.
• Statement II: A particular State Government has restricted admissions to its medical colleges only to local students, debarring candidates from other states.
• There is no explicit indication that one statement was announced in response to the other.
• Education policy decisions at central and state levels can be taken independently based on different motives and constraints.

Concept / Approach:
In cause and effect questions, we consider the direction and plausibility of one statement causing the other. It is helpful to ask whether Statement I naturally leads to Statement II, whether Statement II would trigger Statement I, whether both stem from a common broader cause, or whether they simply describe separate decisions taken for different reasons. If no direct and necessary causal link can be established, the most appropriate classification is often that they are independent causes or independent events.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1. Examine Statement I: A single national level entrance test standardises admission processes across medical colleges.2. Its typical aims might include fairness, transparency, and reducing multiple examinations, not barring students from any particular state.3. Examine Statement II: A State Government decides to restrict seats to its own residents, debaring out of state students.4. This decision likely aims to protect local students or respond to local political pressure, independent of whether there is a single national entrance exam.5. There is no clear reason why a central decision to hold a single test would cause a state to bar other students, nor would a state restriction cause the centre to create a common test.6. Therefore, both statements are best viewed as independent policy decisions, not directly cause and effect for each other.

Verification / Alternative check:
Consider the possibility that both are effects of some common cause, such as concern about medical education quality or inequity. While that is vaguely possible, the question expects a more precise relationship. The nature of the two policies is different: one aims at national standardisation, the other at regional restriction. Without evidence of a shared trigger, treating them as effects of one common cause is speculative. It is safer and more logical for exam purposes to classify them as independent causes or independent decisions, each with its own local reasoning.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect: The central common test does not logically imply that a state must bar outside students.Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect: A single state level restriction cannot logically cause the union Government to change the entire national examination system.Both are effects of a common cause: No specific common cause is given, and such an assumption is not required to explain the statements.No relation at all: While they are separate, they both are causes in their own contexts, so the more precise option is that they are independent causes.

Common Pitfalls:
A frequent error is to force a cause effect relationship whenever two statements mention related sectors such as education or health. Another mistake is to imagine elaborate political stories to connect them. In exam questions, you should rely only on what is reasonably implied by the statements themselves, not on speculative narratives. When two policies address different aspects without a direct chain between them, treat them as independent causes.

Final Answer:
Both the statements I and II are independent causes.