Statements: 1. There is sharp decline in the production of oil seeds this…

Concept: In cause-and-effect reasoning, two given statements can relate in one of several ways — one statement can be the direct cause of the other (its effect), both can be independent causes with unrelated effects, or both can be effects that trace back to some other, unstated common cause. The key test is whether one statement describes a state of affairs and the other describes an action or consequence that logically and chronologically follows from it.

Application: Statement I reports a sharp decline in domestic oil seed production this year — a factual state of affairs. Statement II reports a governmental decision to raise the import quantum of edible oil — an administrative action. A fall in oil seed output directly shrinks the domestic supply of edible oil, and raising imports is the standard policy lever used to plug exactly this kind of supply shortfall. So Statement II's action is the direct, logical response to the shortage reported in Statement I — Statement I is the cause, and Statement II is its effect.

Cross-check — why the other readings do not fit:

• Reversing the order (treating the import decision as the cause) fails because import volumes cannot alter a domestic crop that has already been harvested and reported as short this year.

• Treating the two statements as independent causes fails because the second statement is explicitly framed as a response taken because of a shortage, not an unrelated action with its own separate origin.

• Treating both as effects of some other, unstated cause fails because the shortage described in the first statement is itself a sufficient, direct trigger for the decision in the second — there is no need for a hidden common or separate cause.