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

Q11

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, tensions between values, and underlying systemic issues. Structure as: brief context setting → stakeholder analysis → ethical dilemmas identified → application of ethical frameworks → reasoned resolution with justification. Conclude with balanced judgment showing administrative wisdom.

Key points expected

Identification of all relevant stakeholders and their legitimate interests in the case scenario
Recognition of competing ethical values (e.g., integrity vs. compassion, rule-following vs. public interest)
Application of appropriate ethical frameworks (utilitarian, deontological, virtue ethics, or public service values)
Analysis of power dynamics, institutional constraints, and systemic factors enabling the dilemma
Evaluation of short-term versus long-term consequences of alternative courses of action

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Demonstrates precise grasp that 'analyse' requires deconstruction of the case into ethical components, not mere description; clearly distinguishes between identifying issues and examining their interrelationships and root causes.	Partially understands 'analyse' but drifts into description or prescription; some attempt at breaking down elements without systematic examination of relationships.	Treats as 'describe' or 'suggest' question; fails to deconstruct the case; jumps directly to recommendations without analytical groundwork.
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	Accurately applies 2nd ARC values, Nolan Committee principles, or Indian constitutional morality; demonstrates nuanced understanding of civil service conduct rules and their ethical foundations.	Mentions relevant ethical concepts but applies superficially; some confusion between personal and professional ethics; basic awareness of conduct rules without depth.	Misidentifies ethical issues; confuses values (e.g., equates loyalty to political masters with administrative neutrality); factual errors in legal/institutional framework.
Structure & flow	20%	4	Logical progression from fact-pattern recognition → stakeholder mapping → ethical tension identification → framework application → resolution; each paragraph builds analytical momentum; seamless transitions.	Recognizable structure but uneven development; some sections overdeveloped (typically description) while analysis compressed; occasional disjointedness between paragraphs.	No discernible architecture; random arrangement of points; repetition across sections; conclusion disconnected from body analysis.
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	Deploys specific precedents like T.N. Seshan's electoral integrity stance, Ashok Khemka's whistleblowing, or 2nd ARC recommendations on public service values; references landmark judgments (Vineet Narain, PUCL) where relevant.	Generic mention of 'honest officers' without specifics; or examples marginally relevant; no case-law or institutional precedent.	No examples; or fabricated/inappropriate references; examples contradict the analytical point being made.
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesises analysis into principled yet pragmatic resolution; acknowledges complexity without paralysis; demonstrates administrative wisdom through balanced judgment that upholds constitutional values while remaining implementable.	Safe, generic conclusion restating obvious points; or one-sided resolution ignoring legitimate competing interests; lacks administrative realism.	No conclusion; or abrupt ending; purely ideological stance without analytical foundation; recommendation contradicts earlier analysis.

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 →