Question 1

Cause–Effect reasoning: Use the ongoing power shortage to infer a conditional extension of load-shedding.  Statement I: Rural and semi-urban areas have been facing load-shedding for a considerable period.  Statement II: If the Government fails to ov…

Accepted Answer

Reasoning Existing shortages evidenced by rural/semi-urban load-shedding (I) justify the forecast that, unless resolved, the shortage could spread to cities (II). Causal chain Ongoing crisis (I) → conditional extension anticipated (II). Final Answer Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect

Question 2

Cause–Effect reasoning: Judge whether the two policy and production moves are causally linked.  Statement I: The Government increased petrol and diesel rates by 10 percent with immediate effect.  Statement II: Oil-producing countries decided to incr…

Accepted Answer

Analysis A production increase tends to ease global crude prices, whereas a domestic retail price hike can stem from taxation, under-recoveries, or fiscal policy choices. Conclusion The two moves plausibly arise from separate decisions and constraints; no direct causal link is compelled. Final Answer Both are effects of independent causes

Question 3

Cause–Effect reasoning: Connect extreme weather in supply regions to retail vegetable price spikes.  Statement I: Vegetable prices in the local market have increased manifold in the past few days.  Statement II: Incessant rains have created flood-li…

Accepted Answer

Supply-demand logic Floods disrupt harvesting, transport, and mandi arrivals, causing supply shortages and retail price spikes. Causal chain Incessant rains and flooding (II) → disrupted supply → sharp rise in vegetable prices (I). Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect

Question 4

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: Police resorted to lathi-charge to disperse an unruly mob gathered at the civic headquarters. S2: The civic administration recently hiked the residential pr…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: Police used lathi-charge to disperse an unruly mob at the civic HQ. S2: Civic administration hiked residential property tax by ~30%. Concept / Approach Public unrest and demonstrations often follow sudden, steep tax hikes. Police action to control an unruly crowd is typically a response to such a trigger. Step-by-step reasoning Tax hike (policy shock) ⇒ citizen anger/protest near civic HQ. Escalation of protest ⇒ police lathi-charge to restore order. Option check A: Effect (police action) causing prior tax hike is illogical. B: Tax hike (S2) plausibly triggers protest ⇒ police action (S1). ✔ C/D/E: No evidence of unrelated or common hidden causes beyond the stated linkage. Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 5

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: The government decided to give tax benefits for small savings (on investments and accruals) while taxing all withdrawals. S2: People have been investing mor…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: Policy grants tax benefits to small savings (investments/accruals), but taxes withdrawals. S2: Households prefer small savings over equity to capture tax advantages. Concept / Approach Tax incentives alter after-tax returns and therefore investor behavior. A preferential tax structure for small savings predictably shifts flows toward those instruments. Reasoning Policy incentive (S1) ⇒ relative attractiveness of small savings ↑ ⇒ higher allocations to small savings (S2). Option check A is consistent with standard behavioral response. ✔ B/C/D/E do not match the clear incentive→response chain given. Final Answer Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect.

Question 6

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: There was a huge rush of people to the temple on Sunday, the 15th of the month. S2: The temple authority had decided to close the temple for repairs from th…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: Huge rush on 15th (Sunday). S2: Pre-announced closure for repairs starting 17th. Concept / Approach A known impending closure typically increases visits before the closure date, especially on a weekend. Reasoning Impending repairs/closure (S2) ⇒ devotees advance their visit ⇒ surge on 15th (S1). Option check B fits the time sequence and behavior. ✔ A/C/D/E do not align with the natural pre-closure rush pattern. Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 7

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: A large number of people living in low-lying areas have been evacuated to safer places in the last few days. S2: The Government has rushed relief supplies t…

Accepted Answer

Given data Evacuations from low-lying areas (S1). Government rushing relief supplies (S2). Concept / Approach Both actions typically occur due to a disaster such as flooding/cyclone. They are coordinated responses to the same underlying event, not causes of each other. Option check E: Common cause (e.g., flood) ⇒ evacuation and relief. ✔ A/B/C/D: Do not reflect the joint-response nature of disaster management. Final Answer Both statements I and II are effects of a common cause.

Question 8

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: The Reserve Bank of India has recently imposed restrictions on a few small banks. S2: Small private and co-operative banks are not in a position to withstan…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: RBI restrictions on some small banks. S2: Structural weakness/competitiveness issues of small banks vs public sector banks. Concept / Approach Regulatory restrictions are typically reactive to prudential concerns—capital adequacy, liquidity stress, or competitiveness/viability issues. Hence S2 provides a plausible rationale for S1. Option check B: Bank fragility (S2) ⇒ supervisory restrictions (S1). ✔ A/C/D/E: Do not fit the supervisory–risk sequence described. Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 9

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: Domestic prices of petrol and diesel have remained unchanged for the past few months. S2: International crude oil prices have risen substantially in the las…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: Retail domestic fuel prices are unchanged. S2: Global crude prices have increased sharply. Concept / Approach Domestic pump prices are often administered or buffered (taxes/subsidies). A rise in global crude would pressure retail prices, but S1 shows they were held steady—likely due to domestic policy decisions. Thus each statement reflects different drivers. Reasoning S2 effect driver: Global supply–demand/geopolitics. S1 effect driver: Domestic pricing/tax policy or subsidy smoothing. Hence they do not cause one another; they are effects of independent causes. Final Answer Both statements I and II are effects of independent causes.

Question 10

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: Indian athletes' performance in the recently held Olympics did not reach the level of national expectations. S2: Indian athletes' performance in the last As…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1 references expectations that were not met at the Olympics. S2: A prior exceptional performance at the Asian Games. Concept / Approach Outstanding results at a regional event naturally elevate public expectations for the subsequent global event. Underperformance vs these heightened expectations yields S1. Reasoning Asian Games success (S2) ⇒ higher expectations nationwide ⇒ Olympics outcome felt below expectations (S1). Option check B captures the expectation-setting link. ✔ A/C/D/E do not capture this sequence. Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 11

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: A large number of people fell sick after consuming sweets from a particular shop in the locality. S2: A major part of the locality is flooded and has become…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: Food-borne illness cluster traced to sweets from one shop. S2: The locality is flooded and largely inaccessible. Concept / Approach Flooding can contaminate water supplies/ingredients and disrupt sanitation, leading to spoiled food and outbreaks; it also causes access issues. Thus both statements can stem from the same flood event. Option check E: Common cause (flood) ⇒ contamination/illness (S1) and inaccessibility (S2). ✔ A/B/C/D do not reflect the shared-disaster mechanism. Final Answer Both statements I and II are effects of a common cause.

Question 12

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: Modern life is fast, demanding, and full of variety in ways that often lead to stressful situations. S2: The number of suicide cases among teenagers is incr…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: Elevated stress due to fast, demanding lifestyles. S2: Rising teenage suicide cases. Concept / Approach While suicide is multifactorial, chronic stress is a known risk factor. The item tests the typical reasoning: pervasive stress can contribute to adverse mental-health outcomes among youth. Reasoning Societal stressors (S1) ⇒ increased mental-health burden ⇒ rise in teen suicides (S2). Option check A provides the most plausible causal reading in such verbal reasoning items. ✔ B/C/D/E lack contextual support or invert the timeline. Final Answer Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect.

Question 13

Cause–Effect reasoning: Identify the relationship between Statement I and Statement II.  S1: The university authority instructed all affiliated colleges to ban the use of cell phones inside college premises. S2: A majority of the college teachers si…

Accepted Answer

Given data S1: University issues a ban on cell-phone use on campus. S2: Teachers submitted a petition citing disturbances from ringtones in class. Concept / Approach Complaints (stakeholder feedback) precede and inform policy actions. The petition (S2) plausibly prompted the ban (S1). Option check B: Teachers' petition ⇒ administrative ban. ✔ A/C/D/E: Do not align with the natural complaint→policy sequence. Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 14

Cause–Effect reasoning: Decide the most plausible relationship between the local protest and citywide mall openings.  Statement I: A majority of residents in the locality decided to protest the municipality's decision to allow construction of a shop…

Accepted Answer

Concept/Approach Look for a policy or market trend that could simultaneously lead to widespread mall openings and approval of a new mall in one locality, which then sparks a local protest. Reasoning A permissive urban policy or commercial push (common cause) can explain many new malls citywide (Statement II) and the municipality allowing a new local mall (which then triggers the protest in Statement I). Neither statement directly causes the other. Common pitfalls Assuming that citywide openings directly cause a local protest, when the immediate trigger is the local approval decision. Final Answer Both are effects of a common cause

Question 15

Cause–Effect reasoning: Link petroleum price revision to inflation movement over the week.  Statement I: The Government reduced petroleum product prices by 5% a week after increasing them by 10%.  Statement II: The inflation rate dropped marginally …

Accepted Answer

Approach Petroleum products have significant weight in price indices. A reduction in administered/retail fuel prices generally eases headline inflation, other things equal. Reasoning The 5% cut (Statement I) would mechanically lower fuel components, contributing to a marginal weekly drop in inflation (Statement II). The reverse direction is less direct. Final Answer Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect

Question 16

Cause–Effect reasoning: Evaluate the impact of heightened police vigil on petty crimes.  Statement I: Police authorities recently increased evening vigil in the locality.  Statement II: Incidents of petty crimes in the locality have reduced consider…

Accepted Answer

Reasoning Increased patrols raise deterrence and detection, which plausibly reduces petty crimes. Hence enhanced vigil (I) leads to lower incidents (II). Common pitfalls Attributing reduced crime as causing more vigil, which is counterintuitive to operational practice. Final Answer Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect

Question 17

Cause–Effect reasoning: Connect the fee reduction decision with prior agitation and delays.  Statement I: A Government-appointed committee drastically reduced professional course fees compared to last year.  Statement II: Parents of aspiring student…

Accepted Answer

Approach Sustained public agitation and administrative disruption often trigger policy re-evaluation. Reasoning The parents' agitation and admission delays (II) likely motivated the committee to cut fees (I) as a remedial policy response. Final Answer Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect

Question 18

Cause and Effect: I) Ten hardcore criminals escaped from police custody while being taken to jail in a city. II) All schools in the city remained closed for two days.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The task is to identify how two events relate causally. Event I describes a jailbreak of hardcore criminals. Event II states that all schools remained closed for two days. We must test whether one event causes the other, or whether both are effects of some other independent causes. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Escape of criminals while in custody. II: Citywide school closures for two days. No explicit link is given between the two. Concept / Approach: For “I causes II,” the closure would need to be a direct public-safety response to the escape. While conceivable, closures of all schools citywide for two days due solely to an escape is an unusual, strong reaction and is not asserted. For “II causes I,” the direction makes no sense. The remaining possibility is that both are effects of different causes. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Consider I → II: Not necessary; schools might close for unrelated reasons (e.g., weather, strike, public order advisories unrelated to the jailbreak).2) Consider II → I: Illogical; school closures cannot cause a prior jailbreak.3) Most conservative inference: both are effects of independent causes. Verification / Alternative check: Without an explicit administrative order linking closures to the jailbreak, we must avoid assuming causality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “I causes II” infers an extraordinary policy response not stated; “II causes I” is temporally and logically implausible; “Both are independent causes” misreads the format (they are events, not causes producing other events here). Common Pitfalls: Assuming dramatic citywide measures from a single incident without textual support. Final Answer: If both statements I and II are effects of independent causes

Question 19

Cause and Effect: I) The trout fish is becoming endangered due to excessive fishing and loss of suitable habitat. II) Environmental activism is witnessing a steady rise.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We evaluate whether conservation concerns (trout becoming endangered) could reasonably spur increased environmental activism, or vice versa. The test favors the minimal, text-aligned causal flow that explains both observations without speculation. Given Data / Assumptions: I asserts a concrete ecological degradation (overfishing, habitat loss) endangering trout. II reports a rise in environmental activism. No other drivers of activism are cited. Concept / Approach: Publicized ecological harms commonly trigger activism (awareness campaigns, petitions, NGO mobilization). Thus it is reasonable that I (threat status of trout) functions as a cause contributing to II (more activism). The reverse (activism causing endangerment) is not sensible. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: The deteriorating status of trout provides a motivating reason for activists to intensify efforts → plausible and text-congruent.2) II → I: Activism does not cause endangerment; if anything, it would mitigate it → implausible.3) Independent or independent effects: Possible in real life, but the simplest and most coherent reading is that I helps produce II. Verification / Alternative check: In typical reasoning questions, visible environmental damage often precedes and fuels activism, matching the expected causal direction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either invert causality or ignore the natural stimulus-response relationship between ecological decline and civic action. Common Pitfalls: Assuming causality must be exclusive; even if activism has many triggers, I is sufficient as one cause for the observed rise. Final Answer: If statement I is the cause and statement II is its effect

Question 20

Cause and Effect: I) The Prime Minister’s Ireland visit was the headline in the newspapers. II) The Prime Minister’s Ireland visit is historic.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We must judge which statement functions as cause and which as effect. Major news prominence (headlines) typically results from the intrinsic newsworthiness of an event (e.g., a visit being historic), not the other way around. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Newspapers featured the visit prominently. II: The visit is characterized as historic. Headlines usually reflect significance. Concept / Approach: Media coverage intensity is usually an effect of an event’s perceived importance. If the visit is historic (a significant milestone), that serves as the reason for front-page treatment. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) If II (historic) holds, it naturally causes I (headlines) due to higher news value.2) I → II makes little sense; being on the headline does not make an event historic, it only signals editorial judgment about importance. Verification / Alternative check: Replace “historic” with any high-news-value attribute (pathbreaking treaty, first-ever engagement); such attributes cause headlines, not vice versa. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either invert the relationship or assume independence despite the intuitive cause–effect chain between significance and coverage. Common Pitfalls: Confusing marker (headline) with essence (historic nature). Final Answer: If statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect

Cause and Effect Questions