General Studies 2021 GS Paper IV 20 marks 250 words Compulsory Analyse

Q10

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2021 General Studies 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 requires breaking down the case into constituent ethical dimensions, examining stakeholder interests, applying relevant ethical theories, and evaluating trade-offs systematically. Structure: brief context setting → stakeholder analysis → ethical issues identification → application of frameworks (utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics) → balanced evaluation → reasoned conclusion with practical resolution.

Key points expected

Identification of all stakeholders and their conflicting interests in the case scenario
Application of at least two ethical frameworks (e.g., utilitarian calculus vs. deontological duty)
Recognition of competing public service values: integrity, compassion, efficiency, accountability
Reference to relevant constitutional/ethical principles (Articles 14, 21, RTI, or service conduct rules)
Balanced weighing of short-term versus long-term consequences of possible decisions
Practical, ethically defensible course of action with mitigation of identified harms

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Demonstrates precise grasp that 'analyse' requires deconstruction of ethical tensions rather than mere description; clearly distinguishes between identifying issues and evaluating them through structured reasoning.	Recognises the need for some analysis but conflates description with evaluation; limited distinction between stakeholder listing and genuine ethical examination.	Treats the question as 'describe' or 'discuss'; provides narrative summary without analytical breakdown or confuses 'analyse' with 'suggest solutions' prematurely.
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Accurately applies 2-3 ethical theories with correct terminology; demonstrates nuanced understanding of civil service values, administrative ethics, and relevant legal-constitutional provisions.	Applies one ethical framework adequately with minor conceptual errors; mentions values but lacks depth in connecting to administrative ethics literature or constitutional morality.	Misapplies ethical theories or uses them as labels without substance; confuses personal morality with professional ethics; factual errors in citing rules or constitutional provisions.
Structure & flow	20%	4	Logical progression: context → stakeholders → ethical matrix → framework application → synthesis → resolution; seamless transitions with each paragraph building analytical momentum within 250 words.	Generally coherent structure but some sections underdeveloped or disproportionate; transitions present but mechanical; conclusion somewhat disconnected from analysis.	Disorganised or haphazard arrangement; no clear separation between description and analysis; abrupt ending without synthesis; exceeds word limit significantly or falls substantially short.
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	Integrates 1-2 precise examples (e.g., T.N. Seshan's electoral integrity stance, Sanjiv Chaturvedi whistleblowing, or Vishaka guidelines) that illuminate the ethical dilemma; references specific service rules or SC judgments on administrative ethics.	Generic mention of examples without specificity; or relevant example stated but not tied analytically to the case's ethical dimensions.	No examples or irrelevant ones; fabricated case references; examples from unrelated domains without establishing relevance to administrative ethics.
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesises analysis into a principled, context-sensitive resolution; acknowledges residual ethical tensions; offers innovative yet administratively feasible solution demonstrating mature ethical reasoning.	Reasonable conclusion that follows from analysis but lacks originality; somewhat formulaic 'balanced approach' without specific operationalisation; minor inconsistency with earlier analysis.	Conclusion merely restates points or offers simplistic 'win-win' solution ignoring genuine trade-offs; contradicts own analysis; no conclusion provided within word limit.

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 →