Cause & Effect — Determine the link between competitive psychology and outcomes. I. Psychological pressure from the opponent often prevents even good players from winning. II. Saina, despite being World No. 1, has frequently lost to her Chinese opponents in final matches.

Introduction / Context:The stem contrasts a general psychological mechanism (I) with a specific observed outcome (II). The question is whether the general cause can immediately explain the specific effect.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Opponent-induced psychological pressure can impede even strong performers.
• II: Saina has often lost finals to Chinese opponents despite top ranking.
• The finals setting intensifies pressure (stakes, rivalry).

Concept / Approach:When a general causal statement maps cleanly onto a concrete case that exemplifies it, treating I as cause and II as effect is justified. The frequent losses in finals are consistent with the effect of pressure described in I.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:Other factors (strategy, fitness) may coexist, but the question seeks the most immediate causal reading given the pair. I best explains II in the context supplied.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:B reverses causality; C/D deny an evident link; “None” is unnecessary.

Common Pitfalls:Over-demanding exclusivity of cause; here “immediate cause” means a proximate, credible driver, not the sole determinant.

Final Answer:If I is the immediate cause and II is its effect.