Let’s Crack CAT 2026

Your CAT check-up · tap a ring to see yours

CAT 2026Papers & G StrategyVerbalRC G Strategy

Cause Effect Result Reasoning G Strategy

From IIMking.com · part of Cetking Universe

Introduction to CER

CER questions are common in CAT RC. They test if you can follow the passage’s chain of logic, beyond facts. These questions often ask:

What led to this situation?

Author said this because?

What is the author’s reasoning for this claim?

What is a likely consequence of this idea?

What is a Cause-Effect / Reasoning Question?

Cause-effect and reasoning RC questions test your ability to:

  • Identify why something happens (cause), or what results from a given situation (effect).
  • Understand the logic or justification behind ideas or events in the passage.
  • Cause-effect = Seeks connections between reasons and results described or implied.
  • Reasoning = Tests your grasp of the author's logic and justification for claims.

Importance of CER Questions

YearCERTotal%age
CAT 201984817%
CAT 20204547%
CAT 20211482%
CAT 202254810%
CAT 20234488%
CAT 2024144829%
CAT 202564812%
Total4234212%

Pro Tip

  • When stuck, ask: Which option best explains why X happened, or what logically follows from X?
  • The right choice is typically restrained, matching the passage's reasoning without adding extra assumptions.

Common Traps in CER

Trap TypeHow it tricks you
Out of Scope / IrrelevantAdds unrelated ideas or external knowledge not tied to the cause or effect in the passage.
Contradicts EvidenceSuggests causes or effects that the passage rejects or disproves.
Distorted / Twisted FactsAlters key cause-effect links or reasoning from the text.
Partial / Incomplete ReasoningMentions a minor reason or result but misses the main point.
Vague / MisleadingSounds plausible but doesn’t match the precision of the passage's logic.

Solve the actual CAT questions based on Cause Effect Result


Colonial Forest Policy Controversy | RC Set | Verbal CAT 2025 Slot 3

In 1982, a raging controversy broke out over a forest act drafted by the Government of India. This act sought to strengthen the already extensive powers enjoyed by the forest bureaucracy in controlling the extraction, disposal and sale of forest produce. It also gave forest officials greater powers to strictly regulate the entry of any person into reserved forest areas. While forest officials justified the act on the grounds that it was necessary to stop the continuing deforestation, it was bitterly opposed by representatives of grassroots organisations, who argued that it was a major violation of the rights of peasants and tribals living in and around forest areas. . . .

The debate over the draft forest act fuelled a larger controversy over the orientation of state forest policy. It was pointed out, for example, that the draft act was closely modelled on its predecessor, the Forest Act of 1878. The earlier Act rested on a usurpation of rights of ownership by the colonial state which had little precedent in precolonial history. It was further argued that the system of forestry introduced by the British—and continued, with little modification, after 1947—emphasised revenue generation and commercial exploitation, while its policing orientation excluded villagers who had the most longstanding claim on forest resources. Critics called for a complete overhaul of forest administration, pressing the government to formulate policy and legislation more appropriate to present needs. . . .

That debate is not over yet. The draft act was shelved, though it has not as yet been formally withdrawn. Meanwhile, the 1878 Act (as modified by an amendment in 1927) continues to be in operation. In response to its critics, the government has made some important changes in forest policy, e.g., no longer treating forests as a source of revenue, and stopping ecologically hazardous practices such as the clearfelling of natural forests. At the same time, it has shown little inclination to meet the major demand of the critics of forest policy—namely, abandoning the principle of state monopoly over forest land by handing over areas of degraded forests to individuals and communities for afforestation.

. . . [The] 1878 Forest Act itself was passed only after a bitter and prolonged debate within the colonial bureaucracy, in which protagonists put forward arguments strikingly similar to those being advanced today. As is well known, the Indian Forest Department owes its origin to the requirements of railway companies. The early years of the expansion of the railway network, c. 1853 onwards, led to tremendous deforestation in peninsular India owing to the railway’s requirements of fuelwood and construction timber. Huge quantities of durable timbers were also needed for use as sleepers across the newly laid tracks. Inexperienced in forestry, the British called in German experts to commence systematic forest management. The Indian Forest Department was started in 1864, with Dietrich Brandis, formerly a Lecturer at Bonn, as the first Inspector General of Forests. The new department needed legislative backing to function effectively, and in the following year, 1865, the first forest act was passed. . . .

Question 1 of 25

Q1CAT 2025 · Slot 3 · CAT Medium✓ Answer verified

Colonial Forest Policy Controversy | RC Set | Verbal CAT 2025 Slot 3

Which one of the following best encapsulates the reason for the “raging controversy” developing into a “larger controversy”?

0/25 tried · 0 right