Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: If I is the effect but II is not its direct/immediate cause.
Explanation:
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:
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:
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.
Discussion & Comments