Cause–effect analytical reasoning: Air pollution reduction target vs. rising asthma cases — identify whether Statement I causes Statement II, Statement II causes Statement I, or if they are independent/effects of a common cause (critical thinking question).

Given data

• Statement I: The city's civic authority aims to reduce air pollution by 20% within the next two months.
• Statement II: The number of asthma cases in the city is continuously increasing.

Concept/Approach

• Determine the most plausible causal direction: policy targets (like pollution reduction) are typically responses to worsening health indicators (e.g., rising asthma).
• Check whether both could be parallel effects of a hidden cause or independent; here, the health surge is a likely cause prompting the authority's effect (policy decision).

Step-by-Step reasoning1) Rising asthma cases (II) indicate a public health problem.2) Civic authority sets a 20% reduction target (I) as a countermeasure to the problem.3) Hence, (II) → (I) is the most direct and logical causal chain.

Verification/Alternative

• If (I) caused (II), we would expect an increase in asthma because of a pollution-reduction plan, which is illogical.
• Independent effects/common cause are weaker explanations than a direct policy response to a health spike.

Common pitfalls

• Confusing policy responses (targets) with environmental outcomes.
• Assuming that any two health-policy statements are independent without considering typical governance responses.

Final AnswerStatement II is the cause and statement I is its effect.