Is the following sentence a cause or an effect? "The skill of the craftsperson was no longer needed."

In addition to situational and contextual analysis, "The
skill of the craftsperson was no longer needed" is linguistically analyzed as showing
effect. There will always be some predisposing
circumstance/action/condition that causes the thing in question (e.g., skill of the
craftsperson) to be not needed/needed.

An alternate
sentence that shows this, in abbreviated form, might be, "Since preceding
factor X is true, then the skill was no longer needed/would be no longer
needed/is needed." Or an alternate sentence might be, "The skill was no longer
needed/would be no longer needed/is needed because of
preceding factor X." Or it might be, "The skill was no longer
needed/would be no longer needed/is needed, therefore secondary
factor Q has or has not/may or may not occur. ... Oh, and the skill was/would be no
longer needed/is needed because of preceding factor
X."

In any syntactical construction, the skill being no
longer needed/needed follows a cause and is therefore the effect even though it might
also become the cause of a
secondary or corollary effect branching out from the first effect,
which is the skill not being/being needed. Does this make sense? In short: This sentence
indicates an effect following a cause but it
may also double as a secondary/corollary cause to a
secondary/corollary effect.

In addition, the verb is
constructed in the href="http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/verbs-voice_passive.htm">passive
voice [be + past participle
(was + negator + needed)]. href="http://www.usingenglish.com/glossary/passive.html">Passive voice
indicates that the sentence is the effect of some cause,
though the instigator and causative action are not mentioned.