Question 1

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 2

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 3

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 4

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 5

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 6

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 7

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 8

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 9

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 10

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.

Question 11

Cause & Effect — Temple rush vs impending closure. I. There was a huge rush of people to the temple on Sunday, the 15th of the month. II. The temple authority had decided to close the temple for repairs from the 17th of the month.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Anticipated closures of religious places often trigger pre-closure surges in attendance. The pair invites recognizing that the decision to close (II) can immediately increase turnout beforehand (I). Given Data / Assumptions: II: Closure decision effective from the 17th. I: Unusually large crowd on the 15th (the last Sunday before closure). Devotees may prefer visiting before access is temporarily restricted. Concept / Approach: Imminent scarcity of access (closure) increases present demand (attendance), especially on a convenient day (Sunday). Step-by-Step Solution: 1) II → I: Closure announcement is a proximate cause of pre-closure rush.2) I → II is implausible; attendance cannot cause the prior administrative decision to repair/close.3) Hence, choose B. Verification / Alternative check: Analogous patterns appear before renovation shutdowns in many public venues. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A/C/D misrepresent or deny the cause; B fits the timeline and incentive structure. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring the calendar cue (last Sunday pre-closure). Final Answer: if statement II is the cause and statement I is its effect.

Question 12

Statements: I. The prices of vegetables in the local market have increased manifold during the past few days. II. Incessant rains have created flood like situations in most rural parts of the state.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question belongs to the logical reasoning topic of cause and effect. You are given two statements describing real world situations and you must identify the most logical cause effect relationship between them. Here, one statement talks about a sharp rise in vegetable prices, and the other describes flood like conditions due to incessant rains in rural areas of the state. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement I: The prices of vegetables in the local market have increased sharply in recent days. Statement II: Continuous or incessant rains have caused flood like situations in most rural parts of the state. We assume normal economic behaviour: rural areas often supply agricultural produce, including vegetables, to urban markets. Floods can damage crops, disrupt transportation and reduce supply. Concept / Approach: In cause and effect reasoning, we check whether one statement can reasonably explain why the other statement happened. A typical chain is: natural event (heavy rains and floods) leads to crop damage and supply disruptions, which in turn leads to higher market prices. Therefore, we evaluate whether Statement II can be the cause and Statement I the effect, or vice versa, or whether both are just effects of some other common cause. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Consider Statement II: Incessant rains cause flood like conditions in rural areas.2. Floods in rural areas often damage standing crops and hinder transportation of vegetables to urban markets.3. When supply of vegetables is reduced while demand remains similar, basic economics says prices increase.4. Statement I reports that vegetable prices have increased manifold in the local market.5. Thus, Statement II can naturally be seen as the cause and Statement I as the effect of that cause. Verification / Alternative check: Now test the reverse direction. If Statement I were the cause and Statement II the effect, it would mean that high vegetable prices somehow caused heavy rains and floods, which is not logically or scientifically reasonable. Next, check if both could be independent causes. That would mean the price rise and the floods are unrelated, which ignores the strong and typical link between agriculture, weather and prices. Therefore, the most convincing relation is that the bad weather and floods (Statement II) cause the increase in vegetable prices (Statement I). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect: Economically and scientifically impossible, since market prices do not cause weather events.Both are independent causes: Ignores the natural causal link between floods and food prices.Both are effects of some common cause: There is no need to assume a third hidden cause when a direct causal link already explains the scenario well.Neither statement is related: This contradicts the obvious connection between crop damage and price hikes. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes look for complicated hidden causes and forget straightforward economic reasoning. Another common mistake is to overthink the wording and assume that every pair of statements must be independent. Always ask: can one reasonably happen before and cause the other? Also, remember that natural disasters often have multiple effects, including price increases, migration, and infrastructure damage. Here the simplest and strongest link is between floods (cause) and vegetable price rise (effect). Final Answer: Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 13

Statements: I. The importance of yoga and exercise is being realised by all sections of society. II. There is increasing awareness about health in society, particularly among middle aged people.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is another cause and effect reasoning question where we must decide how two related social observations are connected. One statement mentions that people from all sections of society are realising the importance of yoga and exercise. The other statement mentions growing health awareness, especially among middle aged people. We need to judge which is more likely to be the cause and which is the effect, or whether some other relationship fits better. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement I: The importance of yoga and physical exercise is being realised broadly across society. Statement II: There is increasing health awareness in society, particularly in the middle aged group. We assume that people who are more aware of health issues are more likely to value and adopt yoga and exercise as tools to stay healthy. No other specific external cause is clearly mentioned. Concept / Approach: Cause and effect questions often involve identifying a general trend (for example health awareness) and a specific behaviour or consequence that follows (for example participation in yoga and exercise). In logical terms, awareness about health usually leads to the adoption of healthy practices, not the other way round. So we examine whether growing health awareness (Statement II) can naturally lead to the importance given to yoga and exercise (Statement I). Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Consider Statement II: People, especially middle aged individuals, are becoming more health conscious.2. When people become more aware of health, they look for ways to stay fit and prevent disease.3. Yoga and exercise are widely accepted as effective methods for maintaining physical and mental health.4. Therefore, because of increasing health awareness, more people recognise the importance of yoga and exercise.5. Thus, Statement II logically acts as the cause and Statement I as the resulting effect. Verification / Alternative check: Check the reverse direction. If Statement I were the cause and Statement II the effect, it would mean that simply realising the importance of yoga and exercise automatically created a more general health awareness, which is less natural. Health awareness is a broader concept which can include diet, check ups, stress management and so on. It is more logical that the broader health awareness came first, and one outcome of this awareness is appreciating yoga and exercise. Therefore the direction from Statement II (cause) to Statement I (effect) is more convincing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect: This reverses the natural order. Awareness leads to behaviour, not the reverse.Both statements are independent causes: They are clearly linked conceptually; treating them as unrelated ignores that link.Both are effects of some common cause: The problem does not mention any additional broader cause such as a national campaign that would need to be assumed.Neither is related: This is clearly incorrect because growing health awareness strongly influences attitudes towards yoga and exercise. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates hastily mark both statements as effects of some common cause, thinking of media campaigns or government programmes. However, unless the question explicitly suggests such a third factor or makes the direct causal link weak, you should prefer the simpler, more direct explanation. Here, increasing health awareness explains the growing importance of yoga and exercise, so recognising that clarity is crucial. Final Answer: Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect.

Question 14

Statements: I. The Government has decided to hold a single common entrance test for admission to all medical colleges in India. II. A State Government has debarred students from other states from applying for seats in medical colleges in that state.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cause and effect reasoning question deals with educational policy decisions. One statement describes a national level decision to conduct a single common entrance examination for admission to all medical colleges in India. The other statement describes a state level decision to bar students from other states from applying to its medical colleges. We must decide how these two policy moves are logically related, if at all. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement I: The central Government has introduced a single common entrance test for all medical colleges across India. Statement II: A particular State Government has restricted admissions to its medical colleges only to local students, debarring candidates from other states. There is no explicit indication that one statement was announced in response to the other. Education policy decisions at central and state levels can be taken independently based on different motives and constraints. Concept / Approach: In cause and effect questions, we consider the direction and plausibility of one statement causing the other. It is helpful to ask whether Statement I naturally leads to Statement II, whether Statement II would trigger Statement I, whether both stem from a common broader cause, or whether they simply describe separate decisions taken for different reasons. If no direct and necessary causal link can be established, the most appropriate classification is often that they are independent causes or independent events. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Examine Statement I: A single national level entrance test standardises admission processes across medical colleges.2. Its typical aims might include fairness, transparency, and reducing multiple examinations, not barring students from any particular state.3. Examine Statement II: A State Government decides to restrict seats to its own residents, debaring out of state students.4. This decision likely aims to protect local students or respond to local political pressure, independent of whether there is a single national entrance exam.5. There is no clear reason why a central decision to hold a single test would cause a state to bar other students, nor would a state restriction cause the centre to create a common test.6. Therefore, both statements are best viewed as independent policy decisions, not directly cause and effect for each other. Verification / Alternative check: Consider the possibility that both are effects of some common cause, such as concern about medical education quality or inequity. While that is vaguely possible, the question expects a more precise relationship. The nature of the two policies is different: one aims at national standardisation, the other at regional restriction. Without evidence of a shared trigger, treating them as effects of one common cause is speculative. It is safer and more logical for exam purposes to classify them as independent causes or independent decisions, each with its own local reasoning. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect: The central common test does not logically imply that a state must bar outside students.Statement II is the cause and Statement I is its effect: A single state level restriction cannot logically cause the union Government to change the entire national examination system.Both are effects of a common cause: No specific common cause is given, and such an assumption is not required to explain the statements.No relation at all: While they are separate, they both are causes in their own contexts, so the more precise option is that they are independent causes. Common Pitfalls: A frequent error is to force a cause effect relationship whenever two statements mention related sectors such as education or health. Another mistake is to imagine elaborate political stories to connect them. In exam questions, you should rely only on what is reasonably implied by the statements themselves, not on speculative narratives. When two policies address different aspects without a direct chain between them, treat them as independent causes. Final Answer: Both the statements I and II are independent causes.

Question 15

Statements: A. ITC, a tobacco company, has decided to withdraw from all sponsorship of sporting activities. B. The central Government has decided to introduce legislation banning sponsorship of sports and cultural events by tobacco companies.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cause and effect question is based on corporate behaviour and government regulation. Statement A reports that ITC, a tobacco company, has voluntarily decided to withdraw from sponsoring sports. Statement B reports that the central Government plans to pass a law banning tobacco companies from sponsoring sports and cultural events. We must decide which is the cause and which is the effect, or whether they share some other relation. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement A: ITC withdraws from all sponsorship of sporting activities. Statement B: The Government has decided to bring in legislation to ban sponsorship of sports and cultural events by tobacco companies. We assume companies respond to regulations and anticipated legal changes to manage their image and compliance. No additional hidden events are given in the question. Concept / Approach: In regulatory contexts, a typical sequence is: the Government announces or plans a law against a certain practice, and then companies affected by that law adjust their behaviour accordingly. Therefore, the Government's decision tends to be the cause, and the company's withdrawal becomes the effect. We test this direction and verify that the reverse direction is less logical. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Analyse Statement B: the Government decides to introduce a ban on tobacco sponsorship in sports and cultural events.2. Such proposed legislation would make it illegal or very difficult for tobacco companies to continue sponsoring these events.3. ITC, anticipating the law and wanting to appear responsible or avoid conflict, decides to withdraw from sports sponsorship.4. Therefore, Statement B provides a clear reason or cause for ITC's decision described in Statement A.5. Hence, A is the effect and B is the immediate and principal cause. Verification / Alternative check: Consider the reverse ordering. If Statement A were the cause and Statement B the effect, it would mean that ITC's voluntary withdrawal alone caused the central Government to legislate against all tobacco sponsorships. This is unlikely: governments usually do not create national laws based on the action of a single company that is already complying with the desired behaviour. Laws are typically introduced to restrict non compliant companies. Therefore, the more realistic sequence is that the threat or certainty of a ban (Statement B) pushed ITC to act (Statement A). Why Other Options Are Wrong: A is the immediate and principal cause and B is its effect: This reverses the realistic direction of regulatory influence.Both are effects of some common cause: There is no need to assume an extra hidden cause because the Government decision directly explains the company's behaviour.Neither is related: This ignores the obvious link between a proposed ban and withdrawal from sponsorship.Independent causes: Again, this would be possible only if they were unrelated, which contradicts the natural policy compliance link. Common Pitfalls: Sometimes candidates misinterpret the time order, thinking that if a company acts first, the Government will react later. However, the question wording suggests the Government has decided to legislate, which is a strong, formal step. Even if announcements are close in time, the Government's decision still logically explains why ITC withdraws sponsorship. Always favour the direction where legal or regulatory actions influence corporate behaviour, not the other way around in such questions. Final Answer: A is the effect and B is its immediate and principal cause.

Question 16

Statements: A. Budgetary allocation for building a better railway network, such as constructing new railway lines, has increased. B. There has been a substantial drop in the number of passengers opting for air travel.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cause and effect question tests whether you can recognise when two events are better viewed as effects of a broader scenario rather than as directly causing each other. One statement reports an increase in budgetary allocation for railways. The other statement reports a substantial drop in the number of passengers opting for air travel. We must determine the most reasonable relationship between these two trends. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement A: The Government has increased budget allocation for building a better railway network, including new railway lines. Statement B: There has been a substantial drop in air travel passengers. We assume both statements are recent developments. No explicit causal link is mentioned in the problem. Concept / Approach: Sometimes two events are not cause and effect in a direct sense but instead both arise from a third underlying factor. Here, the Government investment decision and the behaviour of air passengers could both be responses to a common situation, such as an economic slowdown, rising fuel costs, or a policy shift towards more affordable transport. The task is to judge whether a direct one way cause effect link is strong, or whether the common cause explanation is more natural. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Consider Statement A: increasing railway budget aims to expand or improve railway services.2. This may be due to Government priorities such as promoting cheaper, mass transport or improving connectivity.3. Consider Statement B: fewer passengers are choosing to travel by air.4. This drop might be caused by increased air fares, economic difficulties, or concerns that make people prefer cheaper modes of travel.5. It is unlikely that simply increasing railway budget, which takes time to translate into actual services, directly and immediately causes a substantial drop in air travel.6. It is more reasonable that both A and B are responses to a common factor such as high aviation fuel prices or a focus on economical public transport. Verification / Alternative check: If we tried to interpret Statement A as the cause and Statement B as the effect, we would be saying that the increase in railway budget alone caused people to stop flying. However, budget allocation is a long term investment, and passenger behaviour does not change dramatically just because a budget is announced. Similarly, if Statement B were the cause and Statement A its effect, it would mean that because fewer people are flying, the Government is immediately investing more in railways, which may be partially true but is not clearly indicated. The neatest fit is that both developments are outcomes of a larger policy or economic situation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Statement A is the cause and Statement B is its effect: Too direct and ignores other factors affecting air travel demand.Statement B is the cause and Statement A is its effect: Also speculative and not directly supported by the text.Independent causes: They likely stem from related economic or policy conditions, so treating them as totally independent is less convincing than a common cause.No relation: This ignores the broader context that both concern modes of transport and may be linked to similar macro conditions. Common Pitfalls: Many candidates tend to force a direct cause effect relationship whenever two statements mention related sectors like railways and aviation. Another common error is to ignore the possibility of a common cause. In competitive exams, when two trends appear in the same domain but neither clearly triggers the other, always test whether both can be viewed as effects of a larger economic, political or social factor. Final Answer: Both the statements A and B are effects of some common cause.

Question 17

Statements: A. The Government has decided to roll back the recent hike in the prices of cooking gas and kerosene. B. Some ministers resigned in protest against the hike in prices of cooking gas and other petroleum products.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cause and effect question concerns Government pricing decisions and political reactions. Statement A says that the Government has rolled back a price hike on cooking gas and kerosene. Statement B says that some ministers resigned in protest against that price hike. We must determine which is the cause and which is the effect or whether some weaker relationship holds. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement A: Government reverses or rolls back the earlier increase in prices of cooking gas and kerosene. Statement B: Some ministers resigned in protest against the price hike on cooking gas and petroleum products. We assume that the resignations happened after the price hike but before or around the time of the rollback. The Government is sensitive to political pressure created by ministerial resignations. Concept / Approach: The logical chain in such scenarios generally runs as follows: initial decision to raise prices leads to strong protests, including resignations, which in turn forces the Government to reconsider and roll back the hike. The question focuses on the relationship between the resignations and the rollback, not between the original hike and the resignations. Therefore, we must see whether Statement B can reasonably be viewed as the immediate and principal cause of Statement A. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. The Government first hikes prices of cooking gas and kerosene (implied background event).2. In response, some ministers resign in protest, as described in Statement B.3. Political resignations create serious pressure, signal dissent inside the ruling group, and can destabilise the Government.4. To reduce this pressure and calm public and political anger, the Government decides to roll back the price hike, as stated in Statement A.5. Therefore, the rollback (A) is best seen as an effect of the ministers resignation protest (B), which is the immediate and principal cause. Verification / Alternative check: Consider the reverse interpretation. If A were the immediate and principal cause and B its effect, it would mean that ministers resigned because the Government reversed the hike, which is illogical. No minister would normally resign in protest against a reduction in prices that benefits consumers. Another option suggests that B is not the immediate cause but only a remote or indirect effect. However, the question clearly hints that the resignations were a strong protest directly linked to the hike and that the Government rolled back prices after such protests, making B the immediate and principal cause of A. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A is the immediate cause and B is its effect: This contradicts the normal political sequence of protest leading to policy change.A is an effect but B is not its immediate and principal cause: Weakens an obviously strong causal link that the question is highlighting.B is an effect but A is not its immediate and principal cause: Reverses the direction wrongly.No relation: Clearly incorrect, because both statements are explicitly about the same price hike and resulting political action. Common Pitfalls: One error is to confuse the original price hike (not directly mentioned) with the rollback described in Statement A. Students may also overlook the political influence of ministerial resignations and think they are just symbolic. In reasoning questions, the pattern is consistent: strong protests, especially from within the Government, are powerful immediate causes for policy reversals. Recognising that pattern helps in many similar questions. Final Answer: A is the effect and B is its immediate and principal cause.

Question 18

Statements: A. Many girls have started taking part in beauty contests in several towns in India. B. Indian girls succeeded in winning major international beauty titles such as Miss World, Miss Universe and Miss Asia.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question deals with social trends and their impact on international achievements. Statement A says that many girls in India have started participating in beauty contests across several towns. Statement B says that Indian girls have won major international beauty titles such as Miss World, Miss Universe and Miss Asia. We must identify whether one directly causes the other, or whether the relationship is weaker or indirect. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement A: Participation of Indian girls in local and national beauty contests has increased significantly. Statement B: Indian contestants have succeeded in capturing several international beauty titles. International titles are usually the result of national level grooming, training, and competition among a smaller, selected group. Greater participation at the grassroots level (local contests) may improve the talent pool but does not immediately and directly produce international wins. Concept / Approach: We must carefully distinguish between immediate and remote causes. A remote cause is something that contributes indirectly over time, whereas an immediate and principal cause is a direct trigger. Large scale local participation (Statement A) may gradually improve the quality of contestants reaching the national stage, and then some of them may win international crowns (Statement B). However, Statement A does not act as the immediate and principal cause for the specific event of winning global titles. Many other factors, such as professional training, sponsors, and judges decisions, are involved. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Increased participation (Statement A) broadens the talent pool over the years.2. From this larger pool, a few highly talented and well trained contestants progress to national and international levels.3. Eventually, some of these contestants win international crowns, which is described in Statement B.4. Thus B can be seen as an effect partly influenced by A, but not in an immediate, one step causal manner.5. Therefore, the best description is that B is an effect but A is not its immediate and principal cause, since many other factors play crucial roles. Verification / Alternative check: If we chose the option that A is the immediate and principal cause and B is its effect, we would be oversimplifying. International wins could happen even if local level participation is limited but selection and grooming at higher levels are strong. Similarly, broader sociocultural changes, media exposure, and fashion industry growth also influence international success. That makes A a contributing or background factor, not the sole immediate cause. Therefore, the more nuanced option recognising B as an effect but not directly and solely caused by A is correct. Why Other Options Are Wrong: A is the effect and B is its immediate and principal cause: This would mean international wins directly caused more local participation, which is plausible, but the wording in most exam keys usually reserves this pattern for clearer, direct triggers.A is the immediate and principal cause and B is its effect: Overstates the link between local participation and international wins.Neither is related: Clearly they are related in the domain of beauty contests and talent development.A is an effect but B is not its immediate and principal cause: This reverses the direction and does not match the more natural narrative of local participation feeding into international success. Common Pitfalls: Students often jump to the simplest cause effect description without considering whether the cause is immediate or remote. Whenever the options mention phrases like "immediate and principal cause", think carefully about time lag and other contributing factors. Complex social outcomes, such as winning international titles, usually have multiple influences, so you should avoid attributing them to a single trigger unless the question clearly indicates so. Final Answer: B is an effect but A is not its immediate and principal cause.

Question 19

Effect: The temple at a popular religious site looks deserted, with the number of devotees dropping sharply. Which of the following is the most likely cause of this effect?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a cause and effect problem where the effect is clearly described: a temple at a religious site wears a deserted look and the number of devotees has reduced to a trickle. We must select the most plausible cause from the options. Such questions test your ability to connect real life behaviour with likely reasons, using common sense rather than formulas. Given Data / Assumptions: Effect: The temple has very few devotees compared to earlier, and the place appears deserted. We consider each option as a potential cause and check whether it reasonably explains the reduced footfall. We assume devotees are normal, rational people who care about safety and convenience. No other information about the temple or the devotees is provided. Concept / Approach: A good cause for an observed effect should be directly connected, strong, and immediate. If a temple suddenly becomes unsafe or is believed to be unsafe, people will avoid visiting it to protect their lives, even if they are religiously inclined. On the other hand, factors such as internal fund levels or the presence of qualified priests do not directly and immediately cause devotees to stop visiting, especially if they are not widely known or do not affect safety or access. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. Read the effect: the temple is deserted and devotees are very few.2. Check option A: a structural engineer has declared the structure unsafe, which directly threatens visitors safety.3. If devotees know the structure is unsafe, they will naturally avoid visiting, making the temple look deserted. This strongly explains the effect.4. Check option B: depletion of funds is an internal financial issue; it might affect maintenance, but devotees may not even be aware of it immediately.5. Check option C: a donation for renovation would normally increase activity, not reduce it.6. Check option D: having qualified priests is a positive feature and should attract, not repel, devotees.7. Therefore, option A is the most logical cause of the deserted look. Verification / Alternative check: We can verify by asking which option would most quickly change devotees behaviour. A public safety warning from a structural engineer is highly likely to be reported in news or by word of mouth, immediately reducing footfall. Depleted funds may result from fewer devotees, not necessarily cause them. A large donation and availability of priests are positive developments that should increase or sustain attendance. That confirms that option A is the best answer. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Depletion of funds: More likely an effect of fewer devotees, not a cause of the drop in numbers.Donation for renovation: Expected to improve facilities and attract more people, the opposite of the observed effect.Qualified priests: A positive feature that supports rituals, not a factor that empties the temple.Introduction of new festivals: Would generally draw more crowds, again opposite to the effect. Common Pitfalls: Students sometimes overthink and choose options related to money or administration, imagining complex stories. In these questions, always choose the cause that has the clearest and most direct link to the given effect. Safety concerns and access problems are strong causes for reduced attendance at any public place, especially when they are officially certified by experts. Final Answer: The most likely cause is that a structural engineer declared the temple unsafe.

Question 20

Cause: The Government has recently decided to hike the procurement price of paddy for the rabi crop. Which of the following is the most likely effect of this decision?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cause and effect question is based on basic economics and agricultural policy. The cause is clearly stated: the Government has decided to increase the procurement price of paddy for the rabi crop. Procurement price is the price at which the Government buys produce from farmers. We must now select the most likely and direct effect of this price increase on farmers behaviour. Given Data / Assumptions: Cause: Procurement price of paddy for the rabi crop has been increased by the Government. Higher procurement price means higher guaranteed income per unit of paddy sold to Government agencies. Farmers generally choose crops based on expected profitability, risk and Government support. We assume other conditions like climate are normal. Concept / Approach: According to basic economic theory, when the price that producers receive for a product rises, and if costs do not rise proportionally, the profitability of that product increases. This higher profitability normally encourages producers to increase supply. In the context of agriculture, if the Government guarantees a higher procurement price for paddy, farmers will find it more attractive to cultivate paddy compared to other crops with lower or uncertain prices. Step-by-Step Solution: 1. The Government hikes the procurement price of paddy for the rabi season.2. This means farmers will receive more money for each unit of paddy sold to the Government.3. Higher income per unit increases the expected profit from cultivating paddy.4. When one crop becomes more profitable, farmers are encouraged to allocate more land and resources to that crop.5. Therefore, the most direct and likely effect is that farmers will be encouraged to cultivate more paddy during the rabi season. Verification / Alternative check: Check the other options. Switching over to other cash crops when paddy is becoming more profitable (option B) goes against normal economic behaviour. Option C describes a possible past reason why the Government increased the procurement price, but it is a cause of the policy, not an effect of the price hike itself. Option D talks about a future Government decision in another season and is not a direct effect of this specific cause. Option E is about consumer behaviour in the rice market and is not the immediate effect of a procurement price change at the farm level. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Farmers switching to other cash crops: This would happen if paddy became less profitable, not more profitable.Drop in kharif production: This could be a historical cause for the hike, not a consequence of the hike.No future increase in kharif procurement price: This is speculative and not a direct or necessary effect.Consumers immediately stop buying rice: Consumer behaviour in the open market does not change instantly based only on procurement price decisions. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to confuse reasons for the policy with consequences of the policy. For example, lower production in a previous season could be a reason why the Government decided to raise procurement prices, but it cannot be the effect of that decision. Always separate "why was this policy taken" from "what will happen now that the policy is taken". For exam questions on agriculture and economics, remember the simple rule: higher assured price usually encourages higher production. Final Answer: Farmers may be encouraged to cultivate more paddy during the rabi season.

Cause and Effect Questions