Question 1

In rural and semi urban areas of the country there has already been frequent load shedding for quite some time. If the government is not able to overcome the underlying power crisis, load shedding will also be extended to the urban areas. What is th…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In cause and effect reasoning questions we are given two statements and asked whether one directly causes the other or whether both are effects of some other underlying factor. Here Statement I talks about existing load shedding in rural and semi urban areas. Statement II predicts that if the power crisis is not solved, load shedding will spread to urban areas as well. The key idea is to see whether one statement directly produces the other or whether both reflect the presence of a common power crisis in the background. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement I: Rural and semi urban areas are already suffering from load shedding for quite some time. Statement II: If the government does not overcome the power crisis, load shedding will be extended even to urban areas. There is a general power crisis that affects electricity supply in the country. Government action or inaction on the power crisis influences the pattern of load shedding. Concept / Approach: The correct approach is to identify what is the deeper reason behind both statements. A cause is an event or condition that brings another event into existence. An effect is the result or outcome. In many reasoning questions both given statements are effects of a third factor, also called a common underlying cause. Here, the power crisis is that common cause. It explains both the current suffering of rural and semi urban areas and the possible future extension of load shedding to urban areas. Neither statement directly causes the other; rather both arise from the same shortage situation. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Observe that Statement I describes the present situation in non urban regions, where load shedding is already taking place.Step 2: Observe that Statement II is a conditional prediction about the future, which will occur if the government fails to resolve the power crisis.Step 3: Identify the deeper factor: there is not enough power generation or distribution capacity, that is, a power crisis.Step 4: Note that this power crisis already causes load shedding in rural and semi urban areas, which explains Statement I.Step 5: The same power crisis, if not solved, will lead to load shedding being extended to urban areas, which explains Statement II.Step 6: Therefore both statements are effects, present and potential, of a single common cause, and not cause and effect of each other. Verification / Alternative check: If Statement I caused Statement II, then the fact that rural and semi urban areas currently face load shedding would directly force load shedding in urban areas. But the wording of Statement II shows that the key condition is whether the government overcomes the power crisis, not simply that rural areas already suffer.If Statement II caused Statement I, that would require the future possibility of urban load shedding to be responsible for current rural load shedding, which is logically impossible.Hence the only consistent model is that both statements share a common underlying power crisis as their cause. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because Statement I does not directly lead to Statement II; the government can still solve the power crisis and prevent urban load shedding.Option B is wrong because a possible future event in Statement II cannot be the cause of the already existing situation described in Statement I.Option C is wrong because both statements clearly revolve around the same national power crisis, so they are not independent. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to think that whenever one statement is about present conditions and the other is about the future, the first must be the cause and the second the effect. In reasoning questions we must check carefully if a separate background factor explains both.Another pitfall is to ignore the conditional phrase in Statement II, which signals that the decisive factor is whether the power crisis is resolved, not merely that rural areas already face cuts. Final Answer: Therefore both statements describe effects of one common underlying power crisis, and the correct answer is Both Statement I and Statement II are effects of a common underlying cause.

Question 2

In an artificial language, the word briftamint means militant, the word uftonel means occupied, and the word uftonalene means occupation. Based on these patterns, which of the following words could reasonably mean occupant?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This is a classic logical reasoning puzzle about an artificial language. We are given a few sample words along with their English meanings, and we must discover how different parts of the made up words relate to ideas like militant, occupied, and occupation. By analysing roots and suffixes we can infer which new word could represent occupant, that is, a person who occupies something. The question tests pattern recognition, word structure analysis, and the ability to generalise from a few examples. Given Data / Assumptions: briftamint means militant. uftonel means occupied. uftonalene means occupation. We assume that the artificial language follows consistent rules for roots and endings. We want a word that most naturally corresponds to the English word occupant. Concept / Approach: The usual approach is to separate each artificial word into parts and identify common segments that appear in related meanings. First compare uftonel (occupied) and uftonalene (occupation). Both share the root ufton, which clearly relates to occupy or occupation. The endings el and alene then seem to mark grammatical variations like adjective and noun form. Next, briftamint includes the ending mint, and its meaning militant clearly describes a person. This suggests that mint is a suffix forming a person noun. To build occupant we want something like occupier or person who occupies, so we combine the occupation root ufton with the person suffix mint, yielding uftonamint in the answer list. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Notice that both uftonel and uftonalene start with ufton and both meanings relate to occupy or occupation, so ufton is the core root for occupy.Step 2: Observe that the endings differ: el in uftonel for occupied, and alene in uftonalene for occupation, indicating different grammar forms built from the same root.Step 3: Look at briftamint which means militant. A militant is a person, so we search for the part that can signal a person noun.Step 4: The common idea is that mint is likely a suffix meaning one who is associated with or characterised by the root idea, that is a person type.Step 5: To express occupant we want a person related to occupy, so we should form a word with the root ufton and a person suffix similar to mint.Step 6: Among the answer choices only uftonamint clearly contains the root ufton and the ending mint, so it best matches the pattern for occupant. Verification / Alternative check: Check each incorrect option. elamint does not include the key root ufton that is tied to the occupy concept, so it cannot be occupant.briftalene makes use of brifta and alene. From the data we know alene appears in occupation but paired with ufton, not with brifta, and brifta never stood for occupy in any example.elbrifta simply mixes the other pieces without including the person suffix mint and also lacks the clear root ufton. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A (elamint) has the mint ending but no clear connection to the occupy root, so it cannot precisely mean occupant.Option B (briftalene) contains alene, which seems linked to abstract nouns like occupation, but its root is brifta not ufton, so the meaning would be unrelated.Option D (elbrifta) uses pieces that were never tied to the occupy concept and therefore cannot represent occupant. Common Pitfalls: A frequent mistake is to focus only on the suffix mint because militant clearly refers to a person and then choose any option ending in mint, even if the root does not match the required concept.Another pitfall is to misread uftonel and uftonalene as totally different roots, missing the fact that ufton is the common base for occupied and occupation. Final Answer: The only word that keeps the right root for occupy and the correct person suffix is uftonamint, so this must mean occupant.

Question 3

There is an increase in the water level of all the storage tanks that supply drinking water to a city during the last fortnight, and most of the trains were cancelled last week due to waterlogging on the tracks. What is the correct cause and effect …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This cause and effect question presents two real world observations involving water. Statement A talks about rising water levels in city water tanks. Statement B talks about cancellation of trains because of waterlogging of railway tracks. The task is to decide whether one of these directly causes the other, whether they are separate causes themselves, or whether both are results of the same underlying factor, for example a period of very heavy rain in the region. Given Data / Assumptions: Statement A: There is an increase in water level in all drinking water tanks in the last fortnight. Statement B: Most trains were cancelled last week due to waterlogging on the tracks. Water levels in tanks rise when there is heavy rainfall or increased inflow. Waterlogging on railway tracks typically occurs after heavy or continuous rain. Concept / Approach: The core concept is recognising a common meteorological cause. Heavy rainfall over a period of days will both fill surface reservoirs and storage tanks and also cause flooding around low lying transport infrastructure such as railway lines. We must test whether A directly produces B or vice versa. Increased water in storage tanks does not cause waterlogging on railway tracks. Similarly, waterlogging on tracks does not cause storage tanks to fill. Instead, both are clearly effects of a period of strong rain or similar weather event. So the correct classification is that the two statements are effects of a common cause rather than a cause and effect pair between themselves. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Interpret Statement A as an effect of heavy rainfall or increased inflow into tanks during the last fortnight.Step 2: Interpret Statement B as an effect of waterlogging which in turn is caused by heavy rain falling on and around the railway tracks.Step 3: Recognise that the time frames overlap: last fortnight and last week, which are consistent with a single extended rainy spell.Step 4: Consider whether increased tank levels could directly cause train cancellations; there is no clear physical or operational link that would make this true.Step 5: Consider whether cancelled trains could directly cause water in city tanks to rise; this also has no reasonable mechanism.Step 6: Conclude that heavy rainfall is a common external factor that simultaneously leads to higher reservoir levels and waterlogging around tracks. Verification / Alternative check: Imagine that there was no rain at all. City planners could still increase tank levels by pumping water from a river, but that would not necessarily cause waterlogging near tracks.Similarly, waterlogging on railway lines could be due to a burst water main, but in that case only some local tanks might be affected, not all of them, which does not match the wording.The most natural shared explanation for both widespread waterlogging and increased tank levels is heavy rainfall across the region. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A is wrong because rising tank levels do not directly result in trains being cancelled; they are separate symptoms of rain.Option B is wrong because train cancellations cannot cause storage tanks to fill with water.Option C is wrong because it says the two are independent causes, but the pattern clearly suggests a shared environmental factor, making them connected as effects. Common Pitfalls: A common mistake is to assume that whenever two statements mention water in different contexts, one must cause the other. However, many real situations share weather as a background cause.Another trap is to overlook the timing clues. The fact that both events occur within roughly the same short period makes a single rainy spell as a common cause much more plausible. Final Answer: Both statements describe different consequences of heavy rainfall or a similar weather event, so the correct answer is Both Statement A and Statement B are effects of some common cause.

Question 4

A severe cyclonic storm has swept away most parts of a state during the last two days. Which of the following options cannot be a possible effect of this cyclonic storm?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In this effect based reasoning question we are told that a severe cyclonic storm swept away most parts of a state during the last two days. We must identify which listed option cannot reasonably follow as an effect of such a destructive natural event. Cyclonic storms are associated with heavy rain, strong winds, damage to infrastructure, and disruption of daily life. Any option that clearly contradicts these typical consequences is unlikely to be a true effect. Given Data / Assumptions: A severe cyclonic storm affected most parts of the state in the last two days. Such storms normally bring very strong winds and heavy rainfall. They often damage houses, roads, power lines, and communication networks. Authorities usually close offices and schools to keep people safe. Concept / Approach: The right approach is to compare each option with realistic post disaster situations. Effects that describe heavy rain, damage to homes, or problems in communication networks are fully consistent with what severe cyclones do. On the other hand, any option that describes life going on as usual, especially government orders that everyone must attend offices and schools, would be inconsistent with emergency management practices. Therefore we look for the option that directly conflicts with normal safety responses to such a storm. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Evaluate option A. Heavy rainfall in most parts of the state during a cyclonic storm is natural and expected, so this can easily be an effect.Step 2: Evaluate option B. Severe storms often blow away weak houses and huts, leaving people homeless. So this is also a typical consequence.Step 3: Evaluate option C. High winds and heavy rain frequently damage communication lines and towers, so a paralyzed communication system is again very plausible.Step 4: Evaluate option D. If most parts of the state have just been hit by a severe cyclone, the government normally closes schools and offices or declares holidays, rather than forcing people to travel through unsafe conditions.Step 5: Because option D contradicts usual emergency measures and does not align with the severity of the situation, it cannot be treated as a realistic effect of the given cause. Verification / Alternative check: Consider what government priorities are during and immediately after a major natural disaster. Protection of life, rescue, and restoration of essential services come first, while routine work and schooling are often suspended.The idea of keeping all offices and schools open during or right after a severe cyclone would expose citizens to danger from falling trees, floods, and debris. This would be against the usual principles of disaster management.By contrast, more rain, damaged homes, and broken communication networks are standard aftereffects and match the severity described in the cause. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A describes heavy rainfall, which is a direct and obvious result of a cyclonic storm.Option B describes people losing homes due to strong winds, something commonly seen in disaster news reports.Option C refers to communication systems breaking down, another well known effect of storms that damage power and telephone lines. Common Pitfalls: One pitfall is to misread the question and search for the most likely effect instead of the option that cannot be an effect. Always note the key word cannot.Another error is to underestimate how seriously authorities respond during disasters and to assume routine operations always continue. In reality, major closures are common. Final Answer: The only option that clearly contradicts realistic disaster response is the order to keep all offices and schools open, so the correct choice is The government has ordered that all offices and schools should be kept open.

Question 5

Considering all aspects of physical, mental, and social well being, which of the following people has the best overall health?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This question checks understanding of the modern definition of health as given by organisations such as the World Health Organization. Health is no longer viewed only as absence of disease or being physically fit. Instead, it is defined as a state of complete physical, mental, and social well being. Therefore the best option will describe a person whose life is balanced across these three dimensions rather than someone who is simply not sick or who only exercises regularly. Given Data / Assumptions: Health is a broad concept that includes physical, mental, and social components. Regular exercise and body weight are part of physical health but do not automatically cover mental or social aspects. Not being ill at a given moment does not guarantee overall well being. Longevity alone does not show quality of life or mental and social health. Concept / Approach: The correct approach is to compare each option with the holistic definition of health. We must look for a description that explicitly or implicitly includes physical fitness, mental stability, and healthy social relationships. Any option that focuses only on one or two aspects, for example only physical activity or only lack of illness, is incomplete. The answer that uses the word balances and mentions social, physical, and mental health most directly matches the accepted definition of overall health used in health education and competitive exams. Step-by-Step Solution: Step 1: Examine option A. Exercising regularly and not being overweight both relate to physical well being, but there is no mention of mental or social health.Step 2: Examine option B. Not being ill and being physically active also focus on physical condition at a point in time, again without mental or social components.Step 3: Examine option C. Living longer than grandparents talks about life span, but high longevity may still coexist with stress, isolation, or psychological issues.Step 4: Examine option D. This option explicitly mentions balancing social, physical, and mental health, covering all three major dimensions of wellness.Step 5: Since the question asks about best overall health, the option that includes all three aspects of well being is clearly superior. Verification / Alternative check: The standard definition states that health is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.Option D directly reflects this definition with the words balances social, physical, and mental health, while the other options focus mainly on physical status or duration of life.Therefore, comparing each option with the official definition confirms that option D is the correct choice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option A ignores mental and social health; someone may exercise but still be depressed or socially isolated.Option B again misses social and mental aspects and treats absence of illness as enough, which is not true in modern health science.Option C focuses on longevity alone, which says nothing about current quality of life or well being. Common Pitfalls: Students often equate health with fitness or absence of disease and quickly choose options like A or B without remembering the formal holistic definition.Another pitfall is to assume that living longer always means better health. A person can live long despite chronic illness or poor mental health. Final Answer: Hence the person who best matches the complete definition of health is the one who balances social, physical, and mental health, so the correct answer is A person who balances social, physical, and mental health.

Cause and Effect Questions