Public health interpretation: Fewer water-borne disease cases vs. opening new civil hospitals — determine if one causes the other or if both are effects of a common underlying cause.

Given data

• I: City A records a considerable reduction in water-borne diseases during this rainy season.
• II: The Government opened four new civil hospitals in City A at the beginning of the year.

Concept/Approach

• Incidence of water-borne disease generally reduces via improved water quality, sanitation, and preventive measures; hospital openings typically affect treatment capacity, not disease incidence.

Step-by-Step reasoning
1) A plausible common cause is a comprehensive public-health program (e.g., better water treatment, hygiene campaigns, infrastructure upgrades).2) This program can lead to (I) fewer disease cases and also to (II) expanding hospitals to strengthen health systems.3) Direct causation from (II) to (I) is weak because hospitals treat rather than prevent water contamination.

Verification/Alternative

• If (II) caused (I), prevention would have to be hospital-led; the statement mentions only new hospitals, not sanitation interventions.
• Independent causes are possible, but a unified policy drive offers a better explanatory fit for both directions within the same year.

Common pitfalls

• Confusing reductions in incidence with improvements in treatment capacity.

Final Answer
Both the statements I and II are effects of some common cause.