Question 1

Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship: I. Train services in suburban areas of the city were disrupted for four hours. II. The overhead electrical wire snapped between two suburban stations. Which option best captures the causal link between I a…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Rail systems depend on overhead catenary for traction power. A snapped wire typically halts service until repaired. Given Data / Assumptions: II: Overhead wire snapped between two stations. I: Four-hour disruption in services. Assume electric multiple units rely on intact catenary. Concept / Approach: Technical failure (II) directly causes service disruption (I). The reverse is illogical. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify failure point: catenary break (II).2) Map consequence: immediate stoppage and safety clearance cause delays (I).3) Therefore, II→I. Verification / Alternative check: Disruptions can have other causes, but the stem explicitly provides the wire snap as the proximate cause. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They deny the evident technical causality. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking that even short catenary faults can ripple into multi-hour disruptions. Final Answer: Option B: Statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect.

Question 2

Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship: I. Many shops in the locality remained closed throughout the day. II. Many offices in the same locality closed during the day. Which option best captures the link between I and II?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Two closures occur on the same day: shops and offices. The aim is to determine whether one closure caused the other, or whether both are effects of a broader (possibly common) cause. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Shops closed all day. II: Offices closed during the day. No explicit directional cue or trigger is provided. Concept / Approach: Simultaneous closures often arise from an external cause (e.g., strike, bandh, security advisory, natural event). The stem does not support I→II or II→I directly. Hence, it is safest to treat both as effects of (possibly the same) external cause. In the answer framework, this corresponds to “effects of independent causes.” Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test I→II: shop closures seldom compel office closures by themselves.2) Test II→I: office closures do not necessitate shop closures.3) Conclude both are effects; the common external factor is unstated. Verification / Alternative check: Introduce plausible external triggers (city-wide strike, curfew, storm); both I and II follow as effects. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They impose an unsupported direction or deny linkage to external conditions. Common Pitfalls: Assuming thematic proximity (same locality) implies direct causation between I and II. Final Answer: Option D: Both are effects of (independent/external) causes.

Question 3

Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship: I. China is the largest producer, but not the largest exporter, of tea. II. Domestic consumption of tea in China is very high. Which option best captures the causal link between I and II?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The paradox—largest producer yet not largest exporter—suggests heavy internal absorption. High domestic consumption naturally explains lower exportable surplus. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Producer rank high, exporter rank lower. II: Domestic consumption is very high. Concept / Approach: Exports = Production − Domestic Consumption − Stock Change. If domestic consumption is high, exportable surplus shrinks. Thus II → I. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Recognize accounting identity for tradables.2) Apply to tea: high internal demand reduces exports despite high output.3) Conclude II causes I. Verification / Alternative check: Were domestic consumption low, exports would likely be higher, contradicting I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They invert or weaken the core surplus logic. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring that export rank depends on surplus, not merely on gross output. Final Answer: Option B: II is the immediate cause and I is its effect.

Question 4

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 b…

Accepted Answer

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: 1) Identify that I affects global coffee prices/supply but not deterministically Starbucks’ decaf/non-caffeinated pivot.2) Recognize other drivers (consumer health trends, portfolio diversification, competitive positioning).3) Choose (d): II is an effect, but I is not its direct/immediate cause. 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.

Question 5

Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship: I. The government imposed a stock limit on traders’ storage of pulses. II. Prices of pulses went out of reach for the common person. Which option best captures the causal link between I and II?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We compare a price surge with a regulatory response that caps inventory. The task is to determine which triggered which. Given Data / Assumptions: II: Pulses became unaffordable (price spike). I: Government imposed stock limits (anti-hoarding measure). Assume typical policy sequencing: rising prices → intervention. Concept / Approach: Stock limits are responses intended to increase market availability and cool prices. Thus the surge (II) causes the policy (I). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Identify market symptom (II).2) Map to standard remedy (I).3) Therefore, II→I. Verification / Alternative check: Imposing stock limits cannot be the cause of earlier price spikes described in II; chronology and logic favour II→I. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They invert timing or deny policy–market linkage. Common Pitfalls: Confusing preventive regulation with reactive measures. Final Answer: Option B: II is the immediate cause and I is its effect.

Question 6

Cause & Effect — Identify the Relationship: I. The Reserve Bank of India reduced interest rates. II. Housing loans witnessed an increase. Which option best captures the causal link between I and II?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Interest rates influence the cost of borrowing. A reduction typically boosts loan demand, including for housing. Given Data / Assumptions: I: RBI reduced policy/market rates. II: Uptick in housing loans. Assume pass-through to lending rates and credit supply. Concept / Approach: Lower rates reduce EMIs and improve eligibility, expanding demand for mortgages. Hence, I→II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Rate cut lowers borrowing cost.2) More households qualify/choose to borrow.3) Housing loan volumes rise. Verification / Alternative check: Though other factors matter (income, supply), the immediate directional effect is clear. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They invert or dilute the straightforward monetary-transmission logic. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking lags; the stem abstracts from timing granularity but seeks the primary direction. Final Answer: Option A: I is the immediate cause and II is its effect.

Question 7

Cause & Effect — Assess the relationship between the pair of statements. I. Ram visits temples regularly and feeds devotees at temples at least once every three months. II. Ram is an honest man and is respected by many people. Which option best capt…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests whether the learner can separate correlation from causation and identify when two statements may be loosely associated without a direct, immediate causal link. Statement I describes a specific religious/charitable behavior by Ram. Statement II makes a broad character and social-respect claim about Ram. The task is to check if either statement directly and immediately causes the other. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Regular temple visits and periodic feeding of devotees (at least once every three months). II: Ram is honest and widely respected. No explicit temporal sequence or explicit causal connector (e.g., “therefore,” “hence,” “because”). Concept / Approach: Direct/immediate cause implies a clear, necessary, and proximate link from one statement to the other. Acts of charity or piety can enhance reputation, but they do not logically establish honesty (a moral attribute) in a strict, necessary sense. Conversely, being honest and respected does not necessarily produce the particular behavior in I (temple visits and feeding devotees). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test I → II: Feeding devotees may increase social respect, but it cannot by itself prove honesty; thus I is not a sufficient immediate cause of II.2) Test II → I: Honesty and being respected do not compel a person to visit temples or to feed devotees at a defined cadence; thus II is not a sufficient immediate cause of I.3) The most defensible reading is that I (behavior) could be an effect of broader personal traits, community values, or religiosity; however, II (honesty, respect) is not stated as the direct cause of I. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine an honest, respected person who never performs the acts in I; this is plausible, so II does not necessarily cause I. Imagine a person who performs I for social display while lacking honesty; also plausible, so I does not necessarily cause II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A/B assert immediate causation not warranted by the stem. Option D inverts the direction without justification. “None” is too vague when option C precisely captures “I is an effect, but not directly of II.” Common Pitfalls: Equating charitable acts with honesty; assuming reputation implies specific religious behavior. Final Answer: If I is the effect but II is not its direct/immediate cause.

Question 8

Cause & Effect — Identify the causal link. I. Rural employment has long been a concern for national development planners. II. The Prime Minister has laid great emphasis on vocational skill development.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks whether you can trace policy emphasis (II) back to a persistent developmental concern (I). Development planners identify problems (e.g., underemployment), and policy leaders respond with targeted initiatives (e.g., skills). Given Data / Assumptions: I: Rural employment is a recognized, enduring concern. II: The PM emphasizes vocational skill development. Skill development is a common policy response to employment shortfalls. Concept / Approach: If a problem exists (I), governments often emphasize remedies (II). Vocational skills can raise employability and productivity, especially in rural contexts. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: The standing concern about rural employment plausibly and directly motivates policy emphasis on skill development.2) II → I: Emphasis on skills does not cause the pre-existence of the concern; it responds to it.3) Thus, I is the cause, II is the policy effect. Verification / Alternative check: Even if multiple factors drove the emphasis (technology shifts, demographic pressures), I is still a sufficient, immediate motivator consistent with the stem. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option B reverses direction; options C/D imply non-causality; “None” is unnecessary because A fits well. Common Pitfalls: Confusing policy cause with underlying need; assuming reciprocity where only response is indicated. Final Answer: If I is the immediate cause and II is its effect.

Question 9

Cause & Effect — Determine the link between competitive psychology and outcomes. I. Psychological pressure from the opponent often prevents even good players from winning. II. Saina, despite being World No. 1, has frequently lost to her Chinese oppo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The stem contrasts a general psychological mechanism (I) with a specific observed outcome (II). The question is whether the general cause can immediately explain the specific effect. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Opponent-induced psychological pressure can impede even strong performers. II: Saina has often lost finals to Chinese opponents despite top ranking. The finals setting intensifies pressure (stakes, rivalry). Concept / Approach: When a general causal statement maps cleanly onto a concrete case that exemplifies it, treating I as cause and II as effect is justified. The frequent losses in finals are consistent with the effect of pressure described in I. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: Psychological pressure plausibly explains repeated losses in high-pressure finals.2) II → I is not valid: specific losses do not cause the general psychological principle.3) Non-causal options (C/D) do not reflect the natural mapping here. Verification / Alternative check: Other factors (strategy, fitness) may coexist, but the question seeks the most immediate causal reading given the pair. I best explains II in the context supplied. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B reverses causality; C/D deny an evident link; “None” is unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Over-demanding exclusivity of cause; here “immediate cause” means a proximate, credible driver, not the sole determinant. Final Answer: If I is the immediate cause and II is its effect.

Question 10

Cause & Effect — Popularity of a beverage. I. Coffee contains caffeine, a stimulant that raises energy levels and can induce sleeplessness. II. Coffee is a popular drink with office workers across the world.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This problem asks whether a pharmacological property (caffeine’s stimulation) provides a direct explanation for a social fact (popularity among office workers). Given Data / Assumptions: I: Coffee’s active component (caffeine) increases alertness and can delay sleep. II: Coffee is widely popular among office workers globally. Office work often demands sustained attention and wakefulness. Concept / Approach: Link the functional attribute to the user need: alertness for productivity. That makes I a plausible immediate cause for II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: The stimulant effect directly supports the popularity in work settings requiring focus.2) II → I is invalid: popularity does not generate the chemical property.3) Non-causal options do not match the natural explanatory flow. Verification / Alternative check: Even if taste, habit, or culture also matter, the stimulant property provides a clear proximate reason for office popularity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options B/C/D misstate direction or deny the obvious functional link. Common Pitfalls: Demanding exclusivity of cause; multiple reasons can exist, but I remains an immediate cause. Final Answer: If I is the immediate cause and II is its effect.

Question 11

Cause & Effect — Public health actions vs biomedical advances. I. The municipal corporation has ordered intensive insecticide fogging in all city wards. II. Dengue can now be prevented by a vaccine developed by the Immunology Institute of India.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Two different disease-control approaches appear: vector control (fogging) and vaccination. We must decide whether one directly causes the other or whether they are independent lines of action. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Citywide fogging order to reduce mosquito populations. II: A dengue-preventive vaccine is available. No statement links the vaccine's availability to the fogging order. Concept / Approach: Fogging is typically a response to local transmission risk (vector abundance or outbreak). The existence of a vaccine does not directly cause a city to fog; if anything, vaccine availability might reduce reliance on fogging over time, not trigger it. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Evaluate II → I: Vaccine availability causing fogging is counterintuitive; fogging responds to vectors, not to the advent of vaccines.2) Evaluate I → II: Fogging orders do not cause the development of a vaccine.3) Most consistent reading: I is an effect (of local epidemiology), but not caused by II. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine outbreak conditions: fogging would be ordered regardless of whether a vaccine exists; thus I is not an effect of II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/B invent cross-causation; D inverts without basis; “None” is less precise than C. Common Pitfalls: Assuming all health measures are causally linked rather than parallel responses to risk. Final Answer: If I is the effect but II is not its direct/immediate cause.

Question 12

Cause & Effect — Campus mood vs macroeconomic trend. I. There was a lot of excitement at the college campus during visits by recruitment companies. II. The economy has been in a downtrend for the past few years; many companies have reduced staff.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This pair juxtaposes a local, time-bound campus reaction (excitement during recruiter visits) with a broad macro trend (economic downtrend and staff cuts). We must decide if the downtrend directly and immediately produces campus excitement or vice versa. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Campus excitement occurs when recruiters visit. II: Economy down; many companies cut staff. No explicit link that II causes recruiters to visit or that I causes macro trends. Concept / Approach: Campus excitement is more directly caused by the presence of recruiters, not by macro trends themselves. The downtrend could even reduce visits, but the stem asserts visits did occur. Hence II is not a direct cause of I. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: A general downtrend does not directly create campus excitement; recruiter presence does.2) I → II: Campus excitement cannot cause an economy-wide downtrend.3) Therefore, treat I as an effect of immediate local causes (recruiter visits), not of II. Verification / Alternative check: Even with a weak economy, a few companies may still recruit, creating excitement—consistent with I being independent of II. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/B impose causation that does not follow; D wrongly flips direction; “None” is less accurate than C. Common Pitfalls: Attributing specific local sentiments directly to macroeconomic conditions without a proximal mechanism. Final Answer: If I is the effect but II is not its direct/immediate cause.

Question 13

Cause & Effect — Safety compliance and consequences. I. The LPG cylinders supplied to the restaurant kitchen were past their expiry date. II. The restaurant kitchen caught fire.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The pair links a clear safety lapse (expired LPG cylinders) with an adverse event (kitchen fire). We must check whether the lapse can serve as an immediate cause. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Expired LPG cylinders were supplied. II: Fire occurred in the restaurant kitchen. Expired cylinders may have degraded valves or seals, increasing leak risk. Concept / Approach: LPG leakage readily explains ignition in a kitchen environment with open flames or electrical sparks. Thus I is a plausible immediate cause of II. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: Safety non-compliance with gas cylinders can directly lead to fire incidents via leaks.2) II → I is illogical: a fire does not retroactively cause cylinders to be expired.3) Non-causal alternatives do not fit as well as A. Verification / Alternative check: Substitute scenario: properly maintained cylinders lower fire risk, supporting I as a critical causal factor here. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B reverses causality; C/D deny the immediate link indicated by common safety mechanics. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring proximate hazards in kitchens (flame, heat, electricals) that can ignite leaked gas. Final Answer: If I is the immediate cause and II is its effect.

Question 14

Cause & Effect — Natural disaster chain. I. Thousands of people drowned and hundreds of houses were swept away in Japan. II. A very high-intensity earthquake occurred off the Japanese coastline.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Major offshore earthquakes can trigger tsunamis and severe coastal inundation, producing drownings and destruction. The question asks for the immediate causal direction between the disaster outcomes (I) and the seismic event (II). Given Data / Assumptions: II: A high-intensity earthquake off the coast. I: Mass drownings and sweeping away of houses in Japan. Earthquakes at sea frequently cause tsunamis; tsunamis cause coastal devastation. Concept / Approach: Seismic event → tsunami/inundation → drownings & structural loss. Hence II is the immediate cause; I is the effect. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: Consistent with known geophysical chains.2) I → II is impossible: outcomes cannot cause the initiating earthquake.3) Therefore, select B. Verification / Alternative check: Even if landslides or aftershocks contribute, they stem from the primary seismic event. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A reverses direction; C/D claim non-causality; “None” is unnecessary. Common Pitfalls: Missing the tsunami step; still, II remains the proximate trigger. Final Answer: If II is the immediate cause and I is its effect.

Question 15

Cause & Effect — Policy change vs migration trend. I. The United States revised its employment-visa limits for immigrants after approval by its national legislature. II. The number of Indian IT professionals seeking U.S. employment has steadily incr…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: We compare a formal policy revision (I) to a long-run labor-supply trend (II). The stem explicitly attributes I to a legislative approval, not to migration flows. We must identify the immediate cause of I and whether II directly causes it. Given Data / Assumptions: I: U.S. visa limits changed following the national assembly’s approval. II: Indian IT professionals’ interest in U.S. jobs has risen steadily. Policy changes often arise from multifactor legislative processes. Concept / Approach: The stem’s phrasing “following the approval” identifies the immediate cause of I: legislative approval. While migration pressures (including II) can be a background consideration, they are not stated as the direct/immediate cause. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) Test II → I: The stem does not assert that increasing Indian IT flows directly triggered the change; hence not the immediate cause.2) Test I → II: A recent revision cannot explain a multi-year steady increase preceding it.3) Therefore, categorize I as an effect whose immediate cause is legislative approval, not II. Verification / Alternative check: Even if II influenced debates, the immediate, decisive act remains the legislature’s approval. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/B invert or mis-assign causality; D wrongly asserts II as effect. Common Pitfalls: Confusing contributing background trends with immediate causes identified in the stem. Final Answer: If I is the effect but II is not its direct/immediate cause.

Question 16

Cause & Effect — Policy choreography around an investor summit. I. The Chief Minister exhaustively prepared the state capital (beautification, readiness) to welcome investor-summit delegates. II. The state aims to attract industrial investment to fo…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Statements describe a strategic objective (II) and a preparatory action (I). The question is whether the goal to attract investment drives the visible administrative actions ahead of the summit. Given Data / Assumptions: II: Attract industry and jobs via investment. I: Intensive city readiness to host delegates (an enabling signal). Summits showcase readiness to potential investors. Concept / Approach: Objectives (II) motivate actions (I). Prepping the capital is an effect in service of the aim of courting investors. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: The desire to attract investment plausibly and directly causes the preparatory actions.2) I → II would imply the city prep caused the policy objective, which is unlikely; objectives precede tactics.3) Hence, pick B for this format. Verification / Alternative check: If there were no investor objective, such extensive prep would be less justified. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A reverses causality; C/D claim independence; the pair is clearly linked. Common Pitfalls: Confusing policy goals with the public-facing operational steps that serve them. Final Answer: if statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect.

Question 17

I. Many people in the area are reported to be suffering from malaria. II. Private Medical Practitioners in the area have decided to close heir clinics for few days.

Accepted Answer

Both the statement I and II are effects of independent causes. Because spreading malaria or to be suffering from malaria may because mosquitoes and dirtiness. But the decision of private medical practitioners to close the clinics may be other causes.

Question 18

I. The State Govt. has announced special tax package for the new industries to be set up in the state. II. Last year the State Govt. had hiked the taxes for all industrial activities in the State.

Accepted Answer

Because due to hike of taxes last year the State Government has announced special tax package for the new industries to be set up in the state.

Question 19

Cause & Effect — Prices vs weather shock. I. Vegetable prices in the local market have increased manifold in recent days. II. Incessant rains have created flood-like conditions in most rural parts of the state.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Weather shocks disrupt supply chains. Flood-like conditions reduce harvest, damage logistics, and raise prices. The pair asks whether the meteorological event (II) can immediately cause the price spike (I). Given Data / Assumptions: II: Incessant rains → flood-like conditions in rural production zones. I: Recent substantial rise in vegetable prices locally. Floods impede harvesting and transport, cut supply, and increase costs. Concept / Approach: Basic supply-demand logic: negative supply shock shifts the supply curve left, raising equilibrium prices, holding demand constant. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: Floods reduce effective supply / raise costs → higher market prices.2) I → II is implausible; price rise cannot cause the weather event.3) Select B accordingly. Verification / Alternative check: Price data often spike after weather-induced crop losses; this matches the stem. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A reverses direction; C/D claim independence; here causality is direct. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking transport bottlenecks as part of the effective supply reduction. Final Answer: if statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect.

Question 20

Cause & Effect — Policing and crime outcomes. I. Police authorities recently increased evening-hour vigil in the locality. II. There has been a considerable reduction in petty crimes in the locality.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Law-enforcement inputs (visibility, patrols) often deter opportunistic offenses. The pair seeks recognition of the causal chain from policing intensity to crime incidence. Given Data / Assumptions: I: Increased evening vigilance by police. II: Noticeable drop in petty crime rates. Deterrence and rapid response constrain petty offenders. Concept / Approach: Increased patrols create perceived risk and reduce criminal opportunity windows, yielding immediate effects on petty crimes. Step-by-Step Solution: 1) I → II: Heightened vigilance plausibly and directly reduces petty crime.2) II → I would imply falling crime caused the decision to increase patrols; the stem’s recency framing suggests the opposite.3) Choose A. Verification / Alternative check: Crime drops coincident with patrol surges are common in hotspot policing studies. Why Other Options Are Wrong: B reverses direction; C/D deny linkage. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring time ordering: “recently increased vigil” then “has been reduction.” Final Answer: if statement I is the cause and statement II is its effect.

Cause and Effect Questions