General Studies 2024 GS Paper IV 20 marks 150 words Compulsory Critically examine

Q1

(a) The application of Artificial Intelligence as a dependable source of input for administrative rational decision-making is a debatable issue. Critically examine the statement from the ethical point of view. 10 (Answer in 150 words) (b) "Ethics encompasses several key dimensions that are crucial in guiding individuals and organizations towards morally responsible behaviour." Explain the key dimensions of ethics that influence human actions. Discuss how these dimensions shape ethical decision-making in the professional context. 10 (Answer in 150 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) प्रशासनिक तर्कसंगत निर्णय लेने के लिए इनपुट के एक विश्वसनीय स्रोत के रूप में कृत्रिम बुद्धिमत्ता (AI) का अनुप्रयोग एक बहस का मुद्दा है। नैतिक दृष्टिकोण से इस कथन का आलोचनात्मक परीक्षण कीजिए। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) (b) "नैतिकता में कई प्रमुख आयाम शामिल हैं जो व्यक्तियों और संगठनों को नैतिक रूप से जिम्मेदार व्यवहार की दिशा में मार्गदर्शन करने में महत्वपूर्ण हैं।" मानवीय कार्यों को प्रभावित करने वाले नैतिकता के प्रमुख आयामों की व्याख्या कीजिए। चर्चा कीजिए कि ये आयाम पेशेवर संदर्भ में नैतिक निर्णय लेने को कैसे आकार देते हैं। (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

Evaluate your answer to this question → See all 2024 General Studies questions

Directive word: Critically examine

This question asks you to critically examine. 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

The directive 'critically examine' in part (a) demands balanced analysis with both merits and demerits, while part (b) requires 'explain' and 'discuss' for dimensions and professional application. Allocate ~75 words to part (a) covering AI's promise versus ethical risks (algorithmic bias, transparency, accountability), and ~75 words to part (b) identifying 3-4 ethical dimensions (normative, descriptive, meta-ethics, applied) with brief professional context. Structure: brief intro acknowledging debate → balanced body for (a) → concise dimensions for (b) → integrated conclusion on human-AI ethical complementarity.

Key points expected

  • Part (a): AI's administrative utility (speed, data processing, pattern recognition) versus ethical limitations (black-box problem, bias in training data, lack of accountability, dehumanization of decision-making)
  • Part (a): Specific ethical concerns—procedural fairness, distributive justice, and erosion of administrative discretion/wisdom
  • Part (b): Identification of key ethical dimensions: meta-ethics (nature of moral judgments), normative ethics (standards of right/wrong), applied ethics (practical application), and virtue ethics (character)
  • Part (b): How dimensions shape professional decisions—normative ethics providing rules, applied ethics contextualizing dilemmas, virtue ethics emphasizing integrity in civil service
  • Synthesis: Need for human-AI collaboration preserving ethical judgment rather than replacement, referencing AI ethics guidelines (NITI Aayog, UNESCO)

Evaluation rubric

DimensionWeightMax marksExcellentAveragePoor
Demand-directive understanding20%4For (a), presents both supportive and critical perspectives with 'examine' depth; for (b), clearly distinguishes between explaining dimensions and discussing professional application without conflating the two directivesAddresses both parts but treats (a) as one-sided argument or (b) as mere listing without showing how dimensions influence decisionsMisinterprets 'critically examine' as purely negative critique, or confuses ethical dimensions with values/principles; ignores one sub-part entirely
Content depth & accuracy20%4Demonstrates precise understanding of AI ethics challenges (algorithmic bias, explainability, accountability gap) and accurately distinguishes meta/normative/applied ethics with correct philosophical groundingCovers AI benefits/risks generically; identifies ethics dimensions but with overlap or imprecise definitions; mentions professional context superficiallyFactual errors on AI capabilities or ethics dimensions; conflates ethics with legality/compliance; irrelevant content on AI technology mechanics
Structure & flow20%4Clear demarcation between (a) and (b) with balanced word allocation; logical progression from AI debate to ethical framework to synthesis; smooth transitions despite 150-word constraintBoth parts present but uneven weightage; identifiable structure but abrupt shifts; conclusion attempts integrationDisorganized with no clear part separation; rambling or repetitive; missing introduction or conclusion; poor time management visible in incomplete second part
Examples / case-law / data20%4Cites specific instances for (a): COMPAS algorithm bias (US), Aadhaar authentication concerns, or NITI Aayog's National Strategy for AI; for (b): references professional codes (CS Conduct Rules) or landmark cases illustrating ethical dimensionsGeneric mention of 'facial recognition' or 'corruption' without specificity; examples implied rather than stated due to word limitNo examples despite question's invitation; irrelevant examples (non-administrative AI like ChatGPT); fabricated case references
Conclusion & analytical edge20%4Synthesizes both parts: AI as tool requiring human ethical oversight rooted in multi-dimensional ethical reasoning; nuanced position on techno-administrative balance; forward-looking insight on AI ethics governanceSeparate conclusions for each part without synthesis; balanced but predictable summary; no distinctive analytical contributionMissing conclusion; abrupt ending; extreme position (complete AI rejection or uncritical acceptance); conclusion contradicts body arguments

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 →

More from General Studies 2024 GS Paper IV