Question 1

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 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

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 10

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

Question 11

Cause and Effect: I) Members of a community sat on a dharna (protest) demanding reservations in government jobs. II) The leaders of the movement from the community were arrested by the police.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Public protests often lead to law-and-order action, including detention or arrest of leaders. We must identify the most plausible causal direction between the two presented events. Given Data / Assumptions: I: A dharna was staged for reservations. II: Leaders were arrested. No contrary timeline is suggested. Concept / Approach: In standard reasoning items, a protest (I) plausibly precedes and causes police action (II). The reverse is unlikely, as arrests generally respond to, not cause, the already planned protest. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: The demonstration likely triggered police response leading to arrests.2) II → I is implausible chronologically for the same protest; prior arrests could spark a future protest, but that is not indicated here. Verification / Alternative check: Administrative practice aligns with protests producing police action when required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They invert or sever the intuitive sequence. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all arrests are pre-emptive; the stem implies consequence, not anticipation. Final Answer: If statement I is the cause and statement II is its effect

Question 12

Cause and Effect: I) Migratory birds have stopped coming to the lake on the outskirts of the city. II) The lake has the highest water level in almost a decade and a large fish population.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair juxtaposes an ecological behavior (migration absence) with favorable lake conditions (high water, abundant fish). The task is to determine if one explains the other or if both arise from different causes. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Migratory birds have stopped arriving. II: Lake conditions appear ecologically favorable (water level, fish). No explicit causal link is given. Concept / Approach: If II were the cause, we would expect more birds, not fewer. Conversely, if I caused II, bird absence does not explain higher water and fish. Therefore, it is most consistent that both are effects of separate causes (e.g., I: altered flyways/climate elsewhere; II: heavy rainfall, water management, stocking). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II is not sensible: absence of birds does not increase water levels/fish magnitude.2) II → I is counterintuitive: better habitat usually attracts, not repels, migratory birds.3) Hence treat both as effects of independent drivers. Verification / Alternative check: Typical exam logic prefers the independent-effects choice when causal directions are either perverse or unsupported. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They assert causality where none fits the ecological intuition or the text. Common Pitfalls: Assuming any two concurrent ecological observations must be directly linked. Final Answer: If both statements I and II are effects of independent causes

Question 13

Cause and Effect: I) The colony’s residents’ society has decided to post volunteers to keep vigil at night. II) The police have failed to control petty thefts in the city.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We test whether a perceived lapse in policing plausibly causes residents to institute their own vigil, or the reverse. Community self-help measures typically arise in response to a felt gap in enforcement. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Residents decide on night vigilance. II: Police failed to control petty thefts. Residents act to address a safety problem. Concept / Approach: The natural sequence is II → I: enforcement failure motivates community action. The opposite (I → II) would suggest community patrols cause police failure, which is illogical. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: Clear rationale—residents compensate for inadequate policing by deploying volunteers.2) I → II: No rationale—volunteers do not cause prior police failures. Verification / Alternative check: Real-world patterns align with the chosen direction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either invert the causal flow or presume unrelatedness despite the evident linkage. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking obvious response–countermeasure relationships. Final Answer: If statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect

Question 14

Cause and Effect: I) Government colleges in the state have decided to enhance student intake in all courses from the current academic year. II) The number of applicants for various courses has been continuously growing every year.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Administrative capacity changes (increasing intake) are usually responses to demand signals (rising applications). Identify the direction consistent with institutional decision-making. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Colleges will raise intake from the current year. II: Applicant numbers have been rising continuously. Capacity is adjusted to meet demand. Concept / Approach: Demand growth (II) functions as the cause; policy decision to increase seats (I) is the effect. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: Rising applications motivate more seats to accommodate students.2) I → II: Increasing seats does not explain past continuous growth in applications. Verification / Alternative check: Standard capacity planning logic supports II → I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They invert or decouple the clear demand–capacity link. Common Pitfalls: Confusing cause with policy response. Final Answer: If statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect

Question 15

Cause and Effect: I) The country has decided to equip its air force with the latest fighter jets from the world’s biggest plane manufacturer. II) Technology used in fighter planes has advanced significantly in recent years.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Defense procurement decisions to buy the latest jets are often driven by technological advancements that render older fleets less capable. We must identify the likely causal direction. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Decision to procure latest-generation fighter jets. II: Significant recent advances in fighter technology. Military modernization aims to keep pace with technology. Concept / Approach: Advancement in technology (II) is a plausible cause for the decision to buy newer platforms (I). The reverse (buying jets causing past tech advancement) is temporally impossible. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: Technological progress motivates modernization and acquisition.2) I → II: Procurement cannot retroactively cause prior advances. Verification / Alternative check: Acquisition cycles typically follow capability assessments against evolving technology. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They either invert causality or disregard the procurement logic. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring time order in cause–effect reasoning. Final Answer: If statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect

Question 16

Cause and Effect: I) The incidence of seeking psychiatric help is on the increase. II) A large majority of people suffer from diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We compare mental health–seeking behavior with prevalence of chronic physical conditions. The task is to identify whether one causes the other or both reflect separate trends driven by broader societal factors. Given Data / Assumptions: I: More people are consulting psychiatric services. II: Many people have chronic illnesses (diabetes, hypertension). No linkage is asserted between the two statements. Concept / Approach: Although comorbidity can exist, the statements as written do not establish causality. Both can be independent effects of larger causes (e.g., lifestyle changes, urban stress, aging demographics, improved awareness/screening, better access to care). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: Increased psychiatric consultations do not cause higher rates of diabetes/hypertension.2) II → I: While chronic illness can affect mental health, the stem does not specify such a link; concluding causality would be speculative.3) Most conservative conclusion: both are effects of independent (or broader common) factors without a direct one-way causal link stated in the item. Verification / Alternative check: Reasoning questions require necessity, not plausibility. No necessary causal direction is provided. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options asserting direct causality go beyond the text; “independent causes” (option c) misfits the format since each statement is not presented as a cause producing something else here. Common Pitfalls: Projecting real-world medical interactions into a question that withholds the linking premise. Final Answer: If both statements I and II are effects of independent causes

Question 17

Cause–Effect Analysis: I) Activists are strongly opposing the construction of a large shopping mall at the city center. II) Shopping malls are witnessing increasing footfall but decreasing revenue.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests whether two seemingly related urban-economic statements stand in a direct cause–effect chain or are better explained as separate effects of different underlying causes. We must avoid importing unstated assumptions such as “protests always depress mall revenues.” Given Data / Assumptions: I) Activists are opposing the building of a large central shopping mall. II) Shopping malls show rising footfall but falling revenue. No numerical link, timeline alignment, or locality match is provided between I and II. Concept / Approach: In cause–effect questions, prefer direct, necessary, and specific causal ties. If a statement could occur for many reasons unrelated to the other statement, treat them as effects of independent causes, unless the stem tightly couples them (same place, same time, explicit mechanism). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Statement I may be an effect of urban activism, environmental concerns, heritage zoning, traffic/parking fears, or civic land-use debates.2) Statement II (higher visits but lower revenue) can arise from deep discounts, window-shopping behavior, showrooming to e-commerce, shift to food/entertainment, or lower conversion per visitor.3) There is no explicit mechanism showing I → II or II → I; they plausibly stem from distinct causes. Verification / Alternative check: Even if protests occasionally hurt local sales, II generalizes to “shopping malls” without tying to the specific mall of I or to the same city/time. Hence, a general retail trend (II) cannot be safely pegged as the effect of a local protest (I). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (a) assumes I depresses revenue; not established. Option (b) supposes revenue patterns cause activism; speculative. Option (c) marks both as independent causes, but each is phrased as an outcome. Option (e) is unnecessary since (d) fits. Common Pitfalls: Confusing correlation with causation; overgeneralizing a local protest to system-wide revenue behavior. Final Answer: Both statements are effects of independent causes.

Question 18

Cause–Effect Analysis: I) Activists gathered at Gandhi Chowk despite prohibitory orders to protest alleged police high-handedness. II) Police used force to disperse activists protesting construction of a huge river dam.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The problem contrasts two protest episodes with differing stated triggers: alleged police excess (I) and a mega-dam project (II). We must judge whether one directly causes the other or whether both events are separate effects arising from distinct antecedents. Given Data / Assumptions: I) Location-specific gathering at Gandhi Chowk against “police high-handedness,” despite prohibitory orders. II) Police used force to disperse a dam-related protest (issue-specific to the river project). No evidence that the same crowd, location, or timeline links the two episodes. Concept / Approach: A direct cause–effect requires a concrete bridge: same actors, same context, immediate temporal sequencing, and a plausible mechanism. Different proximate issues (policing standards vs. dam construction) normally indicate different causal roots. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I likely results from civic concern over policing and restrictions on assembly.2) II likely results from the contentious dam project and crowd-control choices.3) Because the triggers differ and no connective detail is provided, neither I → II nor II → I is established. Verification / Alternative check: Even if both involve protests and police response, the stems tie them to different issues. Similarity of form (protests) is not causality. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options (a) and (b) impose a direction without evidence. Option (c) treats them as causes, whereas both are outcomes/events. Option (e) is unnecessary given (d). Common Pitfalls: Assuming all protests are one chain of events; inferring causality from shared themes rather than specific linkage. Final Answer: Both statements are effects of independent causes.

Question 19

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

Accepted Answer

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.

Question 20

Cause–Effect Analysis: I) Student union elections in universities/colleges across the country are a messy affair. II) The Supreme Court directed implementation of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations for student body elections in higher education insti…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair connects disorderly student elections (I) with a judicial directive to implement reform guidelines (II). The Lyngdoh Committee was constituted to recommend norms to reduce malpractices and violence in campus elections; thus II naturally follows from the problem identified in I. Given Data / Assumptions: I) Widespread messiness in student union elections. II) Supreme Court orders implementation of specific recommendations (Lyngdoh) for student elections. Implicit: Judicial/committee interventions respond to systemic problems. Concept / Approach: Look for a remedial action (policy/judicial order) that addresses the diagnosed problem. If II is a targeted remedy matching I’s domain, I is the cause (problem), II is the effect (corrective order). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify I as a systemic issue: “messy affair” implies malpractice, disorder, or violence.2) II explicitly mandates implementing election norms—an institutional response.3) Therefore, the presence of I plausibly triggers II; the reverse (II causing I) is illogical. Verification / Alternative check: Were elections already clean, II would be unnecessary. The order (II) is an effect flowing from the problem (I). Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) reverses causality; (c) and (d) deny the visible linkage; (e) is redundant. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking policy-remedy structure; misreading court directions as independent of the problem context. Final Answer: Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect.

Cause and Effect Questions