Consider the following two statements about the Coercive Acts and the Stamp Act in the American colonial context and choose the correct option.

Introduction / Context:
This question is about key events in the history of the American colonies and their relationship with Britain. The Coercive Acts and the Stamp Act are often discussed in the context of the causes of the American Revolution. Statement type questions of this form test not only factual recall, but also the logical relationship between two historical statements. Candidates must judge whether each statement is true and then decide if the second statement correctly explains the first.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Statement I says that the passing of the Coercive Acts made reconciliation between Britain and its American colonies virtually impossible.
• Statement II says that the British Parliament, having issued the Stamp Act in 1765, later repealed it.
• The options describe different combinations of truth and explanatory relationship between the two statements.
• We assume that the question refers to the established historical understanding of these events.

Concept / Approach:
First, we examine each statement on its own merits. The Coercive Acts, also known as the Intolerable Acts, were punitive laws passed after the Boston Tea Party and are widely regarded as a major tipping point that made compromise difficult, so Statement I is historically accurate. The Stamp Act of 1765 imposed taxes on printed materials, and due to strong colonial protests it was indeed repealed in 1766, so Statement II is also true. However, the repeal of the Stamp Act is not the direct explanation for why the Coercive Acts made reconciliation impossible. Therefore, both statements are true but Statement II does not explain Statement I.

Step-by-Step Solution:
Step 1: Evaluate Statement I. The Coercive Acts were harsh measures against Massachusetts and contributed strongly to colonial unity against Britain, making reconciliation very difficult. Step 2: Evaluate Statement II. The Stamp Act was passed in 1765 and repealed in 1766 after widespread colonial protests, so this statement is also factually correct. Step 3: Examine the relationship. The repeal of the Stamp Act occurred earlier and does not directly explain why the later Coercive Acts made reconciliation almost impossible. Step 4: Conclude that both statements are individually true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.

Verification / Alternative check:
Standard history textbooks on the American Revolution describe a clear chronological sequence: the Stamp Act controversy, its repeal, and then later the Boston Tea Party followed by the Coercive Acts. The Coercive Acts were intended to punish Massachusetts and assert British authority, which intensified colonial resistance. The repeal of the Stamp Act is often cited as an earlier example of colonial victory through protest, not as a reason for the later collapse of reconciliation. This confirms the analysis of both truth and the lack of explanatory connection.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Option A claims that Statement II explains Statement I, which is incorrect because the repeal of the Stamp Act did not cause the Coercive Acts to make reconciliation impossible. Options C and D both assert that one of the statements is false, but historical evidence shows that both statements are factually accurate. Hence, only the option that keeps both statements true but denies an explanatory connection is acceptable.

Common Pitfalls:
A common mistake is to think that whenever both statements are true, the option with explanation must be chosen. This is not always correct; the second statement must specifically explain the first in a cause and effect sense. Another pitfall is mixing up the chronology of the Stamp Act and the Coercive Acts, leading to confusion about their relationship. Careful reading and separate evaluation of truth and explanation are essential for this type of question.

Final Answer:
Both statements are individually true, but Statement II is not the correct explanation of Statement I.