Cause–Effect Pairing:\nI) Government deregulates petrol and diesel prices, allowing oil companies to set prices.\nII) Most car manufacturers are not raising vehicle prices despite increased input costs.

Introduction / Context:
This pair mentions a policy shift in fuel pricing and a separate industry pricing behavior. We must decide whether one directly produces the other, or both arise from different underlying drivers.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) Fuel price deregulation—a policy decision affecting downstream consumer running costs and upstream oil marketing autonomy.
• II) Automakers holding ex-factory car prices despite rising input costs (steel, components, logistics).
• Input-cost inflation for automakers may stem from commodity cycles; deregulation mainly affects fuel retail prices and operating costs for consumers.

Concept / Approach:
Vehicle pricing strategy depends on competitive dynamics, demand elasticity, and cost structure. Holding prices in spite of higher inputs can be a deliberate market-share defense. Fuel deregulation is not a primary cause of automakers’ input inflation nor of their pricing restraint.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify likely cause of I: macro-fiscal/oil-sector policy.2) Identify likely cause of II: competitive strategy versus demand sensitivity and commodity costs.3) Conclude I and II are parallel effects of distinct causes, not direct cause–effect.

Verification / Alternative check:
If I directly caused II, we would expect a clear mechanistic link; instead, car pricing restraint is better explained by competitive and demand considerations.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) and (b) impose a causal chain without evidence; (c) mislabels both as “independent causes.”

Common Pitfalls:
Conflating consumer operating costs with manufacturers’ input-cost decisions.

Final Answer:
Both statements are effects of independent causes.