Essay 2022 Essay Paper 125 marks 1200 words Analyse

Q8

Just because you have a choice, it does not mean that any of them has to be right

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

केवल इसलिए कि आपके पास विकल्प हैं, इसका यह अर्थ कदापि नहीं है कि उनमें से किसी को भी ठीक होना ही होगा

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2022 Essay questions

Directive word: Analyse

This question asks you to analyse. The directive word signals the depth of analysis expected, the structure of your answer, and the weight of evidence you must bring.

See our UPSC directive words guide for a full breakdown of how to respond to each command word.

How this answer will be evaluated

Approach

Analyse the paradox embedded in the statement—that choice availability does not guarantee correctness of options—by unpacking its philosophical, ethical, and practical dimensions. Structure: introduction establishing the tension between freedom and moral/ rational absolutes; body exploring individual, institutional, and societal domains where choices exist yet may all be flawed; conclusion synthesising how wisdom lies in recognising this limitation and building frameworks for better choice architecture.

Key points expected

Distinguish between 'freedom to choose' and 'existence of a right choice'—the statement challenges libertarian assumptions
Explore moral philosophy: situational ethics where all available options violate some principle (e.g., trolley problem, administrative dilemmas)
Examine institutional contexts: electoral choices in flawed democracies, policy trade-offs where no Pareto-optimal solution exists
Discuss cognitive biases: choice overload, decoy effects, and how more options can obscure rather than reveal the 'right' path
Connect to Indian context: development vs environment trade-offs (Sardar Sarovar), coalition compulsions in governance, or ethical choices in civil service
Propose way forward: deliberative democracy, ethical frameworks for 'least wrong' decisions, and cultivating practical wisdom (phronesis)

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Thesis clarity	20%	25	Opens with a precise, philosophically grounded thesis that captures the paradox—e.g., 'Choice is procedural freedom; rightness is substantive judgment, and the two are logically independent'—and maintains this tension throughout without collapsing into simplistic optimism or fatalism	States a general position on choice and decision-making but blurs the specific distinction between having options and those options being correct; thesis may drift into unrelated territory	Misreads the statement as about 'making right choices' or 'having no choice'; thesis is absent, contradictory, or reduces to platitudes about 'choosing wisely'
Multi-dimensional coverage	20%	25	Seamlessly integrates at least four of: individual ethics, political philosophy, behavioural economics, institutional design, and Indian governance experience; each dimension illuminates the core paradox without feeling forced	Covers 2-3 dimensions adequately (typically individual morality and politics) but treats them in parallel rather than as interlocking aspects of the same problem; misses behavioural or institutional angles	Single-dimensional treatment (e.g., only personal life choices) or disconnected paragraphs on unrelated themes; no recognition that the paradox operates at multiple scales
Examples & evidence	20%	25	Deploys specific, varied illustrations: philosophical (Sartre's 'dirty hands', Isaiah Berlin's value pluralism), Indian (Mandal Commission implementation, farm law repeal dilemmas), and global (Brexit referendum design, COVID-19 triage protocols); examples are analysed, not merely listed	Uses 2-3 familiar examples (often Gandhi, Nehru, or generic 'a civil servant') with surface-level application; may include one strong case but others are illustrative padding	No concrete examples, or irrelevant ones (e.g., 'choosing a career'); examples are misapplied or contradict the stated thesis; excessive reliance on unnamed 'studies show'
Language & flow	20%	25	Sophisticated yet accessible prose that sustains philosophical nuance; effective use of rhetorical questions, antithesis, and controlled paradox; paragraphs build logically with clear transitions that signal movement from problem to analysis to implication	Competent, occasionally clichéd expression ('in this cut-throat competition'); paragraphs are coherent but transitions are mechanical ('firstly, secondly'); some awkward phrasing or verbosity	Grammatically flawed, repetitive, or excessively ornate; disjointed paragraphs; frequent use of bullet points or numbered lists in lieu of developed prose; well below 1000 words or significantly over limit
Conclusion & forward look	20%	25	Synthesises the paradox into actionable insight—e.g., democratic legitimacy requires not just choice but 'structured deliberation' and 'institutional humility'; proposes concrete mechanisms (citizens' assemblies, sunset clauses, ethical review boards) without naive optimism; ends with a resonant, earned closing image	Restates main points in conclusion; forward look is generic ('we must choose wisely') or retreats to vague hope; no specific institutional or personal recommendations	Absent or abrupt conclusion; introduces entirely new arguments at the end; conclusion contradicts body; purely descriptive ending with no normative or prescriptive element

Practice this exact question

Write your answer, then get a detailed evaluation from our AI trained on UPSC's answer-writing standards. Free first evaluation — no signup needed to start.

Evaluate my answer →