In rural and semi urban areas of the country there has already been frequent load shedding for quite some time. If the government is not able to overcome the underlying power crisis, load shedding will also be extended to the urban areas. What is the correct cause and effect relationship between Statement I and Statement II?

Introduction / Context:
In cause and effect reasoning questions we are given two statements and asked whether one directly causes the other or whether both are effects of some other underlying factor. Here Statement I talks about existing load shedding in rural and semi urban areas. Statement II predicts that if the power crisis is not solved, load shedding will spread to urban areas as well. The key idea is to see whether one statement directly produces the other or whether both reflect the presence of a common power crisis in the background.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I: Rural and semi urban areas are already suffering from load shedding for quite some time.
• Statement II: If the government does not overcome the power crisis, load shedding will be extended even to urban areas.
• There is a general power crisis that affects electricity supply in the country.
• Government action or inaction on the power crisis influences the pattern of load shedding.

Concept / Approach:
The correct approach is to identify what is the deeper reason behind both statements. A cause is an event or condition that brings another event into existence. An effect is the result or outcome. In many reasoning questions both given statements are effects of a third factor, also called a common underlying cause. Here, the power crisis is that common cause. It explains both the current suffering of rural and semi urban areas and the possible future extension of load shedding to urban areas. Neither statement directly causes the other; rather both arise from the same shortage situation.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Observe that Statement I describes the present situation in non urban regions, where load shedding is already taking place.Step 2: Observe that Statement II is a conditional prediction about the future, which will occur if the government fails to resolve the power crisis.Step 3: Identify the deeper factor: there is not enough power generation or distribution capacity, that is, a power crisis.Step 4: Note that this power crisis already causes load shedding in rural and semi urban areas, which explains Statement I.Step 5: The same power crisis, if not solved, will lead to load shedding being extended to urban areas, which explains Statement II.Step 6: Therefore both statements are effects, present and potential, of a single common cause, and not cause and effect of each other.

Verification / Alternative check:
If Statement I caused Statement II, then the fact that rural and semi urban areas currently face load shedding would directly force load shedding in urban areas. But the wording of Statement II shows that the key condition is whether the government overcomes the power crisis, not simply that rural areas already suffer.If Statement II caused Statement I, that would require the future possibility of urban load shedding to be responsible for current rural load shedding, which is logically impossible.Hence the only consistent model is that both statements share a common underlying power crisis as their cause.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A is wrong because Statement I does not directly lead to Statement II; the government can still solve the power crisis and prevent urban load shedding.Option B is wrong because a possible future event in Statement II cannot be the cause of the already existing situation described in Statement I.Option C is wrong because both statements clearly revolve around the same national power crisis, so they are not independent.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to think that whenever one statement is about present conditions and the other is about the future, the first must be the cause and the second the effect. In reasoning questions we must check carefully if a separate background factor explains both.Another pitfall is to ignore the conditional phrase in Statement II, which signals that the decisive factor is whether the power crisis is resolved, not merely that rural areas already face cuts.

Final Answer:
Therefore both statements describe effects of one common underlying power crisis, and the correct answer is Both Statement I and Statement II are effects of a common underlying cause.