Question:medium

Given below is a pair of events I and II. You have to decide their nature of relationship. Assume that the given information is correct and final.

I. More and more students are opting for legal education
II. Bar Council of India has introduced Bar Examination

Show Hint

The Bar Council regulates entry into practice. Ask whether a regulator's new screening test is more likely to be a response to rising numbers or the reason for them.
Updated On: Jul 17, 2026
  • I is the main cause and II is the main effect
  • I is effect but II is not the main cause
  • II is the main cause and I is the main effect
  • II is an effect but I is not the main cause
Show Solution

The Correct Option is A

Solution and Explanation

Use the regulator test on this pair. When one event is a crowd of people behaving in a certain way and the other is a rule made by the body that supervises them, the rule is almost always a response to the behaviour. Regulators react to what is happening on the ground; crowds rarely form because a rule was made.

  1. I is the main cause and II is the main effect: A growing crowd of law students means a growing number of law graduates asking for a licence each year. Volume brings a quality problem, because standards vary widely across colleges. The Bar Council of India, being the body that admits people to practice, answers that problem by placing a common test between the degree and the licence. The Bar Examination is that test. So the rush into legal education is the reason and the examination is the response.
  2. I is effect but II is not the main cause: This calls the students' choice an effect. A student picking law over engineering or commerce is making a career decision driven by interest, opportunity and job prospects. It is not something produced by an act of the Bar Council, so treating it as an effect here does not fit.
  3. II is the main cause and I is the main effect: This claims the Bar Examination pulled students into law. Adding a compulsory test after five years of study makes the path longer and riskier. A barrier put at the exit of a course does not work as an advertisement for the course, so the causal arrow cannot run this way.
  4. II is an effect but I is not the main cause: Half right and half wrong. The examination is indeed a response, but this option then denies the very rise in student numbers that made a screening test necessary, leaving the regulator's action with no explanation at all.

So the answer is (A). The swelling number of law aspirants is the cause and the Bar Examination is the regulator's effect-side response.

Let's summarize:

  • Rules made by a regulator usually follow a change in behaviour, not the other way round.
  • The Bar Examination is a quality filter, so it fits naturally as a reaction to more graduates.
  • A new hurdle discourages entrants, so it cannot be the cause of more students joining.

Option (A) is correct: I is the main cause and II is the main effect.

Was this answer helpful?
0

Top Questions on Statements and Inferences


Questions Asked in CLAT exam