Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship:\nI. Ramanujam was born to parents from a socio-economically disadvantaged community.\nII. Ramanujam secured a plum government job easily.\nWhich option best captures the causal link between I and II?

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:

• I: Disadvantaged background.
• II: Easily secured a top government job.
• No intervening policy facts (e.g., explicit reservation pathway stated) or merit-based evidence are given.

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:

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.