Cause–Effect Pairing:\nI) At the end of admissions, many seats across engineering specializations remain vacant.\nII) Engineering colleges are enhancing infrastructure and recruiting more qualified teachers.

Introduction / Context:
Under-subscription in higher education programs often triggers corrective actions by institutions to improve attractiveness—facilities, faculty quality, and student outcomes. The task is to identify the probable direction of causality.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I) Significant number of engineering seats remain vacant at season end.
• II) Colleges respond by upgrading infrastructure and hiring better faculty.
• Institutions act strategically to enhance value proposition when demand weakens.

Concept / Approach:
Cause should precede and motivate the response. Vacancies degrade finances and reputation, pushing colleges to invest in visible quality improvements to influence the next cycle.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Diagnose the problem: vacant seats imply lower demand or perceived quality.2) Identify response levers: facilities and faculty are controllable and market-salient.3) Conclude I → II: Vacancies cause the upgrades.

Verification / Alternative check:
If II preceded I, we would expect vacancies to reduce, not persist; therefore II → I is weak.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
(b) reverses causality; (c) and (d) ignore the evident stimulus–response dynamic; “None” is unnecessary.

Common Pitfalls:
Misreading corrective actions as independent initiatives rather than targeted responses to market signals.

Final Answer:
Statement I is the cause; Statement II is its effect.