Civil Services Mains 2020 Results: In or Out ? Way ahead, gratitude and Pain

Yes. 

Plus, the updates he releases every year on Unacademy (It is free) or YouTube

Class of 2021

What are the bottlenecks preventing Induction Cooktops from replacing the Gas stove? WORLDWIDE

The need for Stable electricity arguments asideas even in the West they aren't replacing the Gas stove as fast as you'd think. For GAS, you need a proper infra network for provision and distribution. A decent Induction costs around 2000-2500(single burner) in India. In comparison with gas cooktops, it is not that much different. If demand propels, the prices are surely like to come down. Further, Gas connections cost around 900-1000 monthly. Electricity won't be far more expensive IMO. It can also reduce our import dependence.

On the face of it, with proper planning and a govt. push, Induction cooktops look lucrative. 

Then why the reluctance throughout the world?

What to write in questions where the question is itself asking to criticise the government ?  

for eg - GS 2 2020 que- “Recent amendments to the Right to information Act will have profound impact on the autonomy and independence of the Information Commission”. Discuss

In this question do we have to criticize the RTI amendment or support the government in amending it by negating this statement that it does not impact autonomy of IC.

Also what to write in this question-

Q. The questioning of stricter regulation of digital media will lead to restriction of free speech and undermining of democracy. Analyze in light of recent IT Rules 2021. 

here do we have to justify the statement that yes the rules will undermine democracy or do we have to negate this statement by supporting the government in framing of the rules.  

@whatonly @Patootie @SergioRamos @AzadHindFauz  and others

The questions always ask for a reasoned assessment, not blatant criticism. 

I had made a framework to deal with what we call 'tricky questions'. 

Try to find the logic behind the actions where you feel it needs criticism. When executive does something, it does a reasoned assessment of things and arrives at a decision. You may criticise their reasoned assessment and call yours' a more sound assessment. That is a different debate. While writing answers to such tricky questions, you must understand and write their 'reason' first. For example, bringing CAA, Internet shutdown in J&K, Use of NSA etc. were justified by the executive and were not taken without application of mind. You need to know their perspective. 

Then, you may follow two approach-

1. Either uphold the Constitution if you deem a certain executive action is violative of its ideal.
2. Or, use your own reason to justify what you feel is right. 

I tend to do the first one more liberally in my answers.If a certain executive action is found violative of constitutional values, you're free to criticise it. However, you must be careful with your choice of words. You need to do what we call constructive criticism- 

ABC needs to be done, because the Constitution says so. But, executive is doing XYZ and it appears that they have overlooked ABC. 

You cannot write that executive is wrong in doing ABC. It should do this, that etc. This is blatant criticism without substance. 

This is where it is advisable to do a little less of 'The Hindu'. Over the years, we get conditioned by our favourite print media to 'think' in a particular manner. It is equally important to know the other side of the story. When you know both the sides, you write good answers. 

The other day, a junior asked me to review an answer she had written on 'Does nationalism strengthen or weaken our federal polity'? 

In her view, nationalism has a negative connotation and it is weakening our federal structure. This happened because she just knew the one side of the story. 

To sum up, any executive decision is taken after due deliberation. Follow these three steps in such questions-

• You need to bring their assessment first.
• Criticise constructively in the framework of constitutional ideals and other ethical ideas of life.
• Give a way forward for the executive to correct its course! 
  

The framework needs to be kept in mind to write a good answer to such tricky questions. 

in the whole answer I only wrote that they are not defendable in present circumstances. i wrote that privatisation is against socialist principle , CAA is against secular principle, WTO and IMF rules are against sovereignty , and even wrote that elections are getting rigged due to tampering of EVMs which is against democratic principle. 

Then showed answer to a friend who told that i should have mentioned those policies of government which uphold these principles. The EVM tampering point is completely wrong because there is no proof that EVMs can be hacked. 

since then i stopped reading The Hindu and switched to Indian express.

In the above question asked what reasons you could bring behind govt. making those changes? I mean, such important bodies and you will determine tenure , degraded their status - what could be the possible reasons?

Now, say in EIA amendments too- unless you say economic benefits are the reason - faster clearances n all , apart from that what one could bring on table supporting govt. perspective?

But your suggestion is good, before govt. does anything I would read some govt statements to understand why it did so, to get some fodder points to support it. 

I too have a doubt, there are sometimes questions, they ask about your view specifically like In your opinion kind of questions and end the question with substantiate your view. (couldn't find question- there were some 2-3 ones I came across) .

How to deal with them?

https://swarajyamag.com/ideas/the-good-the-bad-and-the-worrisome-of-the-draft-rti-rules

You might find a few positive points from this

(this is on the draft rules so might not be entirely correct for the Act)

There's a lot of discussion around using ANKI. Being an avid user of ANKI in the past, and a firm believer in the philosophy of Active recall and Space Repetition, ANKI doesn't work well for UPSC, may be for Prelims a bit but the best bet would on Super Memo 18.

Just explore it guys, it will be the best thing you might have come across in your learning journey

Out of the many reasons out there, one I can tell is that quality of taste of food being cooked on both the mediums differ. I don’t have any rational backing to this, this is just based on past experience. 

I would like to share one incident. I personally haven’t tasted any food cooked on induction stove but there was a friend of mine who had an induction stove at his flat. He was preparing a meal for us on  gas stove. I saw in his kitchen that he had one induction stove. I asked him why is he using gas stove instead of the induction stove, he said that food doesn’t taste that good to him when cooked on induction stove and hence he prefers cooking on gas stove.

Another reason I can give is that induction stoves require different kind of utensils which can be bothering to some people. I am not sure exactly what type of utensils are these but I’m very much sure that all of the regular utensils do not work on induction stoves.

Take it with a pinch of salt as no prior mains experience here. :/

Seeing your approach on the above mentioned questions, to me, it seems that you are restricting yourself by having that OR in your approach(meaning you are like should I talk about this OR that), which will ultimately lead the answers to be in one direction only.

My suggestion to you would be to focus on the key word demanding what the question formulator is asking in the question, for example, the key word in the RTI vala question is “Discuss”.

In questions where the keywords are like discuss, analyse, critically examine, etc etc, it is wise to talk about both the sides of the story rather than one. In simple terms, both positives and negatives. If positives aren’t there, then you can talk about how/ what/ why and likewise.

For example, in the  IT rules vala question, the key word is Analyse. While answering the question, you can break your answer into different parts like WHAT are the rules about in Intro , HOW it will impact its surroundings(the negative factors) and WHY  this is being formulated in body(here you are giving government POV as well) and finally in conclusion, you can mention your take as to  what can be done for improvisation. You will realise that HOW and WHY parts are balancing in nature, at least for me, they are. 😬

Precisely why I have followed IE. We might think that we are rational and capable of critical analysis and thus won't be affected by the personal bias of the writer of whatever reading material we come across but I feel that bias slowly seeps into our subconscious. 

positive approach rakh yaar

I believe that such questions should not be treated as speaking for any one "view" but assimilating all views.

Starting with the why and Constitutional and in force legal provisions is a good start. In parts where criticism is mandated, like in the draft EIA, you will have to write that it does dilute accountability a bit. There are no two ways around it. The problem arises when if you go outrightly reject the policy. And this is the middle path for me. Do not outrightly reject the policy, but do point out the lacunae. 

For example, in the same EIA question, we can come up with conclusions like yes there is a need for EIA amendment due to the huge backlog of projects restricting us from realising our economic potential. And a few pointers on how it should address the problem of ecosystem fragility, negative externalities etc.

Similarly, in the IT rules question, you can argue how the completely unregulated online platforms have caused problems worldwide, and rules-based order is necessary to make them more safe, secure, and answerable to the govt. authorities. Then point out the *possible* effects it can have on privacy and free speech and how it can be addressed by a transparent and accountable regulatory framework.  Just don't use extremely harsh words like surveillance, democracy in trouble, things like that.

The reason for giving out both sides is that I don't think blindly toeing to the government's line will be appreciated either. A critical and balanced approach is what they look for in the papers I feel.

Yes, utensils are different. The costs are not very high compared to the normal ones and with more demand, they can come down. This taste difference, I have also heard from many peeps. Idk how much real or is it just an illusion.