There is sharp decline in the production of oil seeds this year. The…

Concept: In a cause-and-effect statement pair, Statement I is the cause of Statement II when the fact in Statement I directly explains why the event in Statement II became necessary. If the two statements are simply parallel facts with no such link between them, they are independent causes. If neither statement explains the other AND each is instead attributable to some other, unstated cause of its own, they are effects of independent causes.

Application: Statement I reports a sharp decline in oilseed production this year, which directly shrinks the domestic supply of edible oil. Statement II reports the government's decision to raise edible oil imports around the same time — economically, a shortfall in domestic oilseed output is the standard trigger for raising edible-oil imports to make up the gap. Statement I therefore plausibly explains why Statement II became necessary.

Cross-check: Reversing the order fails on timing — a decision to import more oil is taken only after a supply shortfall is known, so it cannot be the cause of a production decline that Statement I already reports as having happened. Reading the two statements as unrelated parallel facts also understates the connection: a shortfall in domestic output is the standard economic trigger for raising imports, so treating them as coincidental and unrelated is not the more reasonable reading. Reading Statement II as the effect of some separate, unstated cause is unnecessary too, since Statement I alone already supplies a sufficient explanation for it, without needing to invent another cause.

• Reversed direction (imports causing the production fall) is ruled out on timing — the import decision follows a known shortfall; it cannot precede and cause a decline that Statement I already reports as having occurred.

• Independent causes is ruled out because a domestic oilseed shortfall is the standard trigger for raising edible-oil imports, so treating the two statements as coincidental and unconnected is not the more reasonable reading.

• Effects of independent causes is ruled out because Statement I alone already supplies a sufficient explanation for Statement II, leaving no need to invent a separate, unstated cause for it.

Result: Hence, Statement I is the cause and Statement II is its effect.