Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship: I. In Africa, a large part of coffee plantations has been destroyed. II. Starbucks is considering introducing non-caffeinated drinks in its international cafés. Which option best captures the causal link between I and II?

Introduction / Context:The stem pairs supply-side destruction in Africa’s coffee sector with a multinational’s product-mix consideration. We must decide whether this is a direct/immediate causal chain.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• I: Large-scale destruction of coffee plantations in Africa.
• II: Starbucks mulls non-caffeinated beverages.
• Global sourcing is diversified; corporate product shifts are multifactorial (health trends, margins, supply risk).

Concept / Approach:While supply shocks can influence product strategy, the leap from African plantation loss to “non-caffeinated drinks” is not a direct or immediate causal step; Starbucks sources worldwide and could substitute origins. Thus, II may be an effect of broader market considerations, but I is not its immediate/direct cause.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:If the stem had specified “due to African crop failure Starbucks lacks beans,” causality would be stronger; it does not.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:They overstate immediacy or reverse direction.

Common Pitfalls:Inferring firm strategy from a single-region supply shock in global commodities.

Final Answer:Option D: II is the effect, but I is not its direct/immediate cause.