Cause & Effect — Assess the relationship between the pair of statements. I. Ram visits temples regularly and feeds devotees at temples at least once every three months. II. Ram is an honest man and is respected by many people. Which option best.

Question

Solve this multiple-choice question and choose the correct option.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context:This item tests whether the learner can separate correlation from causation and identify when two statements may be loosely associated without a direct, immediate causal link. Statement I describes a specific religious/charitable behavior by Ram. Statement II makes a broad character and social-respect claim about Ram. The task is to check if either statement directly and immediately causes the other. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Regular temple visits and periodic feeding of devotees (at least once every three months). II: Ram is honest and widely respected. No explicit temporal sequence or explicit causal connector (e.g., “therefore,” “hence,” “because”). Concept / Approach:Direct/immediate cause implies a clear, necessary, and proximate link from one statement to the other. Acts of charity or piety can enhance reputation, but they do not logically establish honesty (a moral attribute) in a strict, necessary sense. Conversely, being honest and respected does not necessarily produce the particular behavior in I (temple visits and feeding devotees). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test I → II: Feeding devotees may increase social respect, but it cannot by itself prove honesty; thus I is not a sufficient immediate cause of II.2) Test II → I: Honesty and being respected do not compel a person to visit temples or to feed devotees at a defined cadence; thus II is not a sufficient immediate cause of I.3) The most defensible reading is that I (behavior) could be an effect of broader personal traits, community values, or religiosity; however, II (honesty, respect) is not stated as the direct cause of I. Verification / Alternative check:Imagine an honest, respected person who never performs the acts in I; this is plausible, so II does not necessarily cause I. Imagine a person who performs I for social display while lacking honesty; also plausible, so I does not necessarily cause II. Why Other Options Are Wrong:Options A/B assert immediate causation not warranted by the stem. Option D inverts the direction without justification. “None” is too vague when option C precisely captures “I is an effect, but not directly of II.” Common Pitfalls:Equating charitable acts with honesty; assuming reputation implies specific religious behavior. Final Answer:If I is the effect but II is not its direct/immediate cause.

More Questions from Cause and Effect

Discussion & Comments