Cause–Effect Analysis:\nI) Michelangelo’s paintings in the Sistine Chapel are priceless.\nII) Michelangelo died a poor man.

Introduction / Context:
Here we contrast the present-day valuation of an artist’s work (I) with the historical fact of the artist’s poverty at death (II). The trap is to suppose that priceless value today explains poverty then, or vice versa. Instead, treat each as an outcome of different circumstances across time.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) The paintings are now regarded as priceless (cultural/historic valuation).
• II) Michelangelo died poor (his lifetime financial state).
• Time frames and mechanisms differ; no direct causal claim is asserted.

Concept / Approach:
Causality demands temporal and mechanistic coherence. A modern valuation (I) cannot cause a past outcome (II). Likewise, dying poor does not, by itself, cause later generations to declare works priceless; that status depends on critical reception, rarity, preservation, and cultural significance.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I is an effect of art-historical appraisal, religious/cultural heritage, and conservation.2) II is an effect of the artist’s lifetime contracts, patronage systems, spending, and social structures.3) Because neither outcome necessitates the other, they are best interpreted as effects of independent causes.

Verification / Alternative check:
Reverse-causality checks fail (a future valuation cannot cause the past). Common-cause arguments (e.g., genius) still do not create a direct effect from one statement to the other.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) and (b) mis-order time or logic; (c) labels them “independent causes,” but the statements are effects/outcomes; (e) is redundant given (d).

Common Pitfalls:
Romanticizing “poverty implies later fame” as causal; ignoring chronology.

Final Answer:
Both statements are effects of independent causes.