General Studies 2024 GS Paper IV 20 marks 150 words Compulsory Evaluate

Q2

(a) "It is not enough to talk about peace, one must believe in it; and it is not enough to believe in it, one must act upon it." In the present context, the major weapon industries of the developed nations are adversely influencing continuation of number of wars for their own self-interest, all around the world. What are the ethical considerations of the powerful nations in today's international arena to stop continuation of ongoing conflicts? 10 (Answer in 150 words) (b) Global warming and climate change are the outcomes of human greed in the name of development, indicating the direction in which extinction of organisms including human beings is heading towards loss of life on Earth. How do you put an end to this to protect life and bring equilibrium between the society and the environment? 10 (Answer in 150 words)

हिंदी में प्रश्न पढ़ें

(a) "शांति के बारे में केवल बात करना ही पर्याप्त नहीं है, इस पर विश्वास करना चाहिए; और इस पर केवल विश्वास करना ही पर्याप्त नहीं है, इस पर कार्य करना चाहिए।" वर्तमान संदर्भ में, विकसित देशों के प्रमुख हथियार उद्योग, दुनिया भर में अपने स्वार्थ के लिए कई युद्धों की निरंतरता पर प्रतिकूल प्रभाव डाल रहे हैं। आज के अंतर्राष्ट्रीय क्षेत्र में निरंतर चल रहे संघर्षों को रोकने के लिए शक्तिशाली राष्ट्रों के नैतिक विचार क्या हैं? (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए) (b) ग्लोबल वार्मिंग और जलवायु परिवर्तन विकास के नाम पर मानव के लालच का परिणाम है, जो इस और संकेत करता है कि मानव सहित सभी जीवों का विलुप्त होना पृथ्वी पर जीवन की समाप्ति की ओर अग्रसर है। जीवन की रक्षा के लिए और समाज तथा पर्यावरण के बीच संतुलन लाने के लिए आप इसे कैसे समाप्त करेंगे? (उत्तर 150 शब्दों में दीजिए)

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

Directive word: Evaluate

This question asks you to evaluate. 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 'evaluate' requires judgment-based analysis with reasoning. For part (a), spend ~75 words examining ethical obligations of powerful nations regarding arms trade and conflict perpetuation; for part (b), use ~75 words assessing solutions for climate equilibrium. Structure: brief context for each → ethical analysis → concrete measures → synthesized conclusion.

Key points expected

Part (a): Identifies ethical duties of powerful nations—non-maleficence, responsibility to protect, and jus ad bellum principles—regarding arms export controls and conflict mediation
Part (a): Critiques military-industrial complex influence on foreign policy and the moral hazard of profiting from perpetual wars
Part (b): Recognizes anthropogenic climate change as collective action problem requiring intergenerational justice and ecological citizenship
Part (b): Proposes concrete equilibrium mechanisms—circular economy, climate reparations, sustainable development goals implementation, and nature-based solutions
Cross-cutting: Demonstrates tension between state sovereignty and global ethical obligations, suggesting cosmopolitan ethics as framework

Evaluation rubric

Dimension	Weight	Max marks	Excellent	Average	Poor
Demand-directive understanding	20%	4	Correctly interprets 'evaluate' as requiring judgment with justification; for (a) assesses ethical weight of state obligations versus realist interests; for (b) weighs competing solutions rather than merely listing them	Addresses both parts but treats them descriptively; limited evaluative language or balancing of perspectives	Misreads directive as 'describe' or 'explain'; provides only factual narration without judgment or prioritization
Content depth & accuracy	20%	4	For (a): cites just war theory, negative duties of non-intervention harm, and arms trade treaty obligations; for (b): references planetary boundaries, doughnut economics, and climate justice principles with precision	Covers basic ethical concepts but lacks theoretical grounding; mentions climate change and peace without specific frameworks	Superficial treatment with factual errors; conflates climate adaptation with mitigation; vague on ethical obligations
Structure & flow	20%	4	Clear demarcation between (a) and (b) with parallel analytical structure; each part moves from diagnosis → ethical framework → prescriptive action; integrated conclusion bridging peace and environmental ethics	Both parts addressed but uneven development; abrupt transitions; conclusion merely summarizes without synthesis	Disorganized or merged parts; no discernible structure; word count severely imbalanced (e.g., 120 words on one part)
Examples / case-law / data	20%	4	For (a): references Yemen conflict/Saudi arms sales, ATT (Arms Trade Treaty), or India's non-alignment stance; for (b): cites India's net-zero 2070 commitment, Loss and Damage Fund outcomes, or Chipko/Silent Valley movements	Generic references like 'Paris Agreement' or 'UN' without specificity; no Indian or contemporary instances	No examples; or irrelevant ones (e.g., citing World War I for contemporary arms trade); fabricated data
Conclusion & analytical edge	20%	4	Synthesizes both parts through common ethical thread—restraint of greed, institutionalized virtue ethics, or ecological peace; offers forward-looking insight on cosmopolitan democracy or Earth trusteeship	Separate conclusions for each part without linkage; platitudinous ending ('need for cooperation')	Missing conclusion; or purely rhetorical closure without analytical substance; 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 →