Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: If both statements I and II are effects of independent causes
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Here, a biographical fact (disadvantaged birth) is paired with an outcome (easy access to a plum government job). The test is to check whether a clear cause–effect link is stated or implied.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Without an explicit link (like quota specifics, exam performance, or targeted scheme), asserting I→II or II→I is speculative. More plausibly, both are outcomes of separate underlying factors: I could be an effect of socio-economic structures; II could be an effect of talent, preparation, or recruitment processes.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Check if I logically explains II: not necessarily—being disadvantaged does not by itself guarantee an easy plum job.2) Check if II explains I: equally implausible—securing a job later does not cause one’s disadvantaged birth.3) Conclude both may be effects of different causes (independent lines): social background vs. later achievements/systems.Verification / Alternative check:A causal claim would need bridging premises (e.g., reservation criteria met, special recruitment). Absent these, independence is safer.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:Any directionality claims (a/b) overreach; unrelated (e) is too strong since both involve Ramanujam’s life but still lack causal tie.
Common Pitfalls:Assuming causation from temporal order or salient social narratives without stated premises.
Final Answer:Option D: Both statements I and II are effects of independent causes.
Discussion & Comments