Since the medium length question was apparently too complex and the short question wasn't apparently clear enough, I will try to rewrite the question about the closing in a more answerable form, motivating my choices. The part about why it was deleted was mostly cleared by Russel McMahon.
Reason to rewrite the question
It appears that on this Meta, when someone asks "why was question X closed with reason Y" all they really want to know is "because three users with N points decided it had to be closed with reason Y". I didn't expect to receive this answer twice (the other is an answer since deleted because I was 'not nice'), considering the information carried by such an answer, in the light of the second screenshot I posted, is basically zero (and I also guess that the tag 'discussion' means something else from what I and my dictionaries think).
Answering "because three users with N points decided to close it" is nothing but a tautology, and if the answer to the most logic (at least in my world, but YMMV) follow-up question "then why three users decided to close it" would be "we don't know, we cannot know, you should ask them", the logic conclusion to draw is that on EESE, simple questions that should be answerable by any electronics practitioner are closed for reason that are imperscrutable to everyone except the users who chose to close them. And that such a arbitrariness and lack of transparency is okay with the top brass here.
The purpose of this question on Meta
What I am asking here is "how is it possible for a question (as elementary as this) to be closed without that it is possible to find a common agreement on why it was closed?" to the point that the only answer I have got so far is basically "it was closed because someone decided to close it". I find this lack of transparency disturbing and contrary to the purpose of aiding users ask better questions.
So, in order to avoid further tautologies, I am forced to analyze the question one step at the time, sentence after sentence. It's short and simple enough to make this possible. This is not some fringe topic that requires experts in the field. Any EE or even any technician should know how a transistor work. Let's see if the community can agree on a reason for closing the question, with the motivation given, as if it were asked today.
Since the original question I had asked in this post wasn't clear enough (except for user @dim, it appears, but their comments are now buried into a deleted answer), I had to split my question in many explicitly worded bits that are - I hope - tautology-proof.
The answers required are mostly in the form of Yes/No, except for the last one.
Consider this an educative post, for new users that are beginners and want to ask good question. Show them why the question was not focused, so that they can learn how to ask focused questions. So far, nobody has given a reason for that. Feel free to contact the original close-voters, if you wish. My question(s) is (are) directed at the community. In the spirit of the community, the answer that better explains why the OP question is not focused and deserving to be closed should come up on top with the most votes.
A word on notations
In the following the original question from the OP is in italics (if I can make it in italics - the buttons no longer works on my laptop and PC, and it is not possible to correctly indent the text as a quote) - but the screenshot of the question is in a link at the bottom. More notation: I will write my questions in capital letters to highlight them. This is a convention: it's not intended as shouting; it's writing a sentence in CAPITAL LETTERS to make it stand out from the rest of the text that is not a question (normal text), headings or highlighted text (bold face), and the original question (italics.) The purpose is to make all questions easily spotted at a glance, without having to sift through the rest of the text (for those who are in a hurry to get to the gist. I still maintain that the question in the title alone should suffice but, here we are.)
Splitting my original question in several - hopefully less prone to tautology - questions:
First we start with the picture. It shows a PNP transistor with the emitter junction directly biased by a small battery and the collector junction reverse biased by a larger battery. Granted, the picture is ugly, but not everybody can afford a pen tablet, and drawing with the mouse can lead to such uncertain drawings. Are users supposed to be discriminated on the base of their computing gear?
Moreover, this is the picture that can be found in several introductory electronics and physics textbooks when they explain the principles of transistor working (a couple of examples: David A. Bell, "Electronic Devices and Circuits" 2nd edition, fig. 4-4, p. 69 and fig. 4.5 p. 70; Millman, Halkias, "Electronic Devices and Circuits", fig. 9.3 p. 223)
Q1) IS THE UGLY PICTURE THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
Now let's get to the body of text.
A few comments noted that the question was not properly formatted and user Eugen Sh. TeXified it correctly, apart from some missing spaces and lack of linefeeds (explained by the way this site renders two separate sentences when there is not a double space at the end of the first one.)
Q2) IS THE BAD FORMATTING THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
The question opens with this preamble, where the OP sets up the stage with what the picture represents and what they have learned so far:
Quote from OP
In the above transistor, we know that due to forward biasing, the resistance is low in the p−n part and high in n−p part due to reverse biasing. And i learnt that voltage drop in p−n part is low due to the low resistance and voltage drop in n−p part is high due to the high resistance.
It is anticipated here what will be the only one question they are about to ask: they know (more or less, they are a beginner by their own admission) that if you forward bias a pn junction (from P to N) you get a small voltage across it and an appreciable current through it, and if you reverse bias it (from N to P) you can get a large voltage across it and a small current through it. They are about to ask (their one and only question) why one voltage is small and the other is large.
Q3) IS THIS 'PREVIEW' OF WHAT WOULD BE THE ONLY QUESTION THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED (because it's not focused, of all reasons)?
They go on stating the one and only question they ask (why is the voltage across the reverse biased junction greater than the voltage across the forward biased junction if IE > IC), after explaining what they found confusing, i.e. the fact that even if the 'resistance' of a direct biased junction is low and the 'resistance' of a reverse biased junction is high, since IE>IC, it would still be mathematically possible (in their view) to have IEVEB > ICVCB (sign conventions might apply.)
Quote from OP
But in p−n junction, the current which passes is IE which is a high current and the voltage,let's say, Rpn is low, so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is V1=VE−VB = IE Rpn. Similarly V2 = VE−VB = IC Rnp. Now how do we conclude V2 > V1? Even though Rpn < Rnp,we have IE > IC. So there is the possibility of being V1 and V2 equal even.
Q4) IS THE REFERENCE TO THE NONLINEAR RESISTANCE OF THE JUNCTION (AND NOT TO AN UNNECESSARY DYNAMIC RESISTANCE) THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
Q5) IS THE MENTION OF OTHER VARIABLES (NAMELY, CURRENT AND RESISTANCE) OTHER THAN VOLTAGE THE REASON THIS QUESTION IS NOT FOCUSED AND SHOULD BE CLOSED?
I noticed that there is still a small formatting error, namely "and the voltage,let's say,Rpn is low,so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is..." should read, instead, "and the voltage - let's say Rpn is low - so by ohm's law voltage difference between the blue marked points E and B is..."
Q6) IS THIS PART OF BAD FORMATTING THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED?
Finally, after having asked the same question two times already, the OP summarized what the one and only question they are asking is, and by declaring their level of expertise so that a question could be given accordingly:
Quote from OP Then how is it plausible to deduce V2>V1 and not the other way around? I am sorry for having misconceptions but i am saying this from a beginner's point of view.
Q7) IS THE REPETITION OF THE ONE AND ONLY QUESTION ASKED THE REASON THE QUESTION SHOULD BE CLOSED? (Of all reasons because it is not focused?)
Q8) IF Q1-Q7 DID NOT EXPLAIN WHY: WHAT MAKES THE QUESTION NOT FOCUSED TO THE POINT IT HAS TO BE CLOSED?
I hope it is clear what I am asking, now.
Previous versions of the question
Why was this question closed and what were the "reason of moderation" for which it was deleted?
EDIT: to clarify: I asked this question about ten days after the question was closed, and maybe one or two day after if was deleted. The reason for closing and deleting it, therefore are independent of what I am writing here post-facto. If the remaining additional information is too confusing, just ignore it. The question I am asking is:
"Why was this question deleted and why was it closed?"
The question was in topic and clearly stated, just not well formatted (it had an ugly picture but not everybody owns a drawing pad). Here is the text of the question
And here is the reason given for closing it.
There was no point in editing the question because it was clear what was asked (the focus is quite clear: why is one voltage bigger than the other) so once closed it was impossible to reopen it by editing it without asking a different question.
( Incidentally it was also an interesting question because the answer could be used to explain the core of transistor action and how a transistor can be seen as a way to match impedances. For those who think it was unanswerable, here is a possible answer to complement the other information I had given in the comments: https://i.postimg.cc//1tfFPWp6/LOL.png ) 3d8098c310eb3583a51c95f338b340c5
But my question is only partly about why it was closed. It is also about why it was deleted. What were the "moderation purposes"?