In the context of rural areas, land inequality is both a cause and effect of assets
Which of the following would best serve as an example for the above statement?
a. Small land holders make less profit on land than large holders.
b. Large land holders in rural areas exploit the small farmers and that has been the cause of naxalism.
c. Large land holders lobbies and corner major portions of agricultural inputs like fertilizers.
d. Large land holders are able to influence installation of irrigation facilities, and availability of more irrigational facilities enables large farmers to generate
surplus and hence buy more land.
e. Large landholders enjoy economic security
that enables them to invest more on land.
Can anyone explain why can’t we consider option E as the answer
We need to look for option where "Land" is both cause and effect
in D and E : Effect = buy/invest on land
D: surplus generated due to availability of irrigation => land is the cause. Had there been no land, irrigation would not be helpful
E: economic security => we cannot be sure that economic security is due to land, it might be land owners have other source of income
"Appreciation is a wonderful thing. It makes what is excellent in others belong to us as well."
Press Kudos, if I have helped.