Statements: 1. The farmers have decided against selling their kharif crops to…

CONCEPT: In cause-and-effect statement reasoning, decide the relationship between two given statements by checking whether one statement describes an action or situation that, on its own, provides a sufficient real-world reason for the other statement. The statement describing the antecedent action is the cause; the statement describing the resulting behaviour is the effect. If neither statement provides a reason for the other, they are independent causes. If both statements are themselves effects, each traceable to its own separate, unstated antecedent rather than to each other or to any single shared antecedent, they are effects of independent causes.

APPLICATION: Statement II reports a government policy - a cut in the procurement price of kharif crops, effective from last month and continuing for the next six months - already in motion before the situation in Statement I arises. A lower price offered by government procurement agencies gives farmers a direct economic reason to withhold their crops from those agencies and look for better returns elsewhere, which is exactly the behaviour described in Statement I. Statement II therefore supplies a sufficient, self-contained explanation for Statement I.

CROSS-CHECK: Checking the reverse direction - a government's procurement-price policy is not something that could be produced by a batch of farmers deciding not to sell; Statement I is a reaction, not an institutional decision, so Statement I cannot be the cause of Statement II. This confirms the causal direction runs from Statement II to Statement I.

CONTRAST (why the other options fail):

• Statement I is the cause and statement II is its effect: reverses the direction - an already-scheduled price cut cannot be the result of a subsequent farmer reaction.

• Both statements are independent causes: requires no causal bearing between Statement I and Statement II in either direction, but the same pricing-and-selling relationship connects them, so a complete absence of any causal link is not supported.

• Both statements are effects of independent causes: requires each statement to trace to its own separate, unstated antecedent, but no such hidden causes are indicated - Statement II already offers a complete explanation for Statement I directly.

Statement II is therefore the cause and Statement I its effect.