Step 1: Interpret Statement 1.
Statement 1 is a general principle: present outcomes are reflections of past causes. It suggests that results provide evidence of prior conditions.
Step 2: Interpret Statement 2.
Statement 2 describes an exception—Murali did not study as much as his peers, yet secured first rank. This seems to contradict the “cause-effect” logic at first glance, since less effort produced a better outcome.
Step 3: Compare both.
- Statement 2 highlights a specific unusual case.
- But Statement 1 is a broad generalization: it holds true across situations by considering not only “studying effort” but also other possible causes (like intelligence, strategy, background, etc.).
- Hence, Statement 2 does not invalidate Statement 1—it is merely an example where the “cause” (other than study effort) still explains the result.
Step 4: Eliminate wrong options.
- (A) Incorrect: Statement 2 does not make Statement 1 invalid.
- (B) Incorrect: Not strictly contradictory, as unseen causes could explain Statement 2.
- (C) Incorrect: Statement 2 does not supplement Statement 1, it appears as an exception.
- (D) Incorrect: Calling it “irrelevant” is dismissive; exceptions do not disprove general laws.
- (E) Correct: Statement 1 is universally valid, even if Statement 2 is true.
\[
\boxed{\text{Statement 1 will hold true even if Statement 2 is valid.}}
\]