Cause–Effect Analysis:\nI) The Reserve Bank of India decided to lower bank interest rates.\nII) The Prime Minister invited foreign investors, promising facilitation and support.

Introduction / Context:
This item juxtaposes a monetary-policy move (RBI cutting rates) with an executive signal (PM courting FDI). While both can co-occur in a pro-growth policy climate, the question is whether either directly causes the other, or whether both are effects of broader macro-policy objectives.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) RBI cut in bank interest rates (a central bank action).
• II) PM outreach to foreign investors with assurances (an executive/government action).
• No explicit sequence or dependence is provided.

Concept / Approach:
Institutional separation matters. Central bank decisions and executive invitations to FDI often reflect a shared macroeconomic goal (stimulus, investment, growth) but are not mechanistically dependent in a one-step cause–effect chain unless textually asserted.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) I plausibly results from domestic macro conditions (output gap, inflation outlook, credit conditions).2) II plausibly results from an investment-promotion agenda, geopolitical positioning, and sectoral reforms.3) The stems do not claim that RBI cut rates because of the PM speech, or that the PM outreach occurred because of rate cuts.

Verification / Alternative check:
It is reasonable to see both as synchronized pro-growth signals. Synchronized effects of a common intent are still not causes of each other.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(a) and (b) impose a direction without support; (c) labels them “independent causes,” but the phrasings of I and II are clearly actions/outcomes; (e) is redundant given the fit of (d).

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming hierarchical causality from mere co-occurrence; ignoring institutional autonomy.

Final Answer:
Both statements are effects of independent causes.