I have very less experience in mains answer writing. But here are some of the learnings from whatever little answer writing I've done:
1. After reading question, I try to figure out why this question must have been asked, and then make an overall structure of the answer (what Dipin sir say as QI).
2. In the introduction part, I've different approaches in different subjects. Eg, In History, I write the background in which the particular event was taking place. In Polity, I write the purpose behind the provision in the constitution and whether it is a part of original constitution or a later development by parliament or judiciary. Likewise in IR, I try to write the overall big picture related to the topic. etc. However, this is not necessarily the way I address every question.
3. In body part, I try to make the answer very simple, easy to read and having some structure. My effort is to convey the examiner the way I understand the issue or topic. I try to avoid bombarding the answer with many points. According to me, it irritates the examiner. I want to engage the copy checker instead. To add many points in the answer I draw a flowchart and diagram instead.
4. Conclusion part should link present status with the futuristic one. A kind of way forward. And it should be linked to the content I've written in the body part ie, there should be a natural flow in the answer.
I have problem in writing Ethics answers and Essays. Probably because I've devoted least time to both. How do you approach these papers?
1. Please elaborate about Dipin sir's QI part.
2. I am also trying to adopt a similar approach. In polity, I start with consitution's article or legal provisions. In economy, I define terms and give some data. In IR, I try to use history (e.g. on a question about Bangladesh I would mention partition and 1971 war). One problem I am noticing is that I don't mention current events in intro much. I mostly end up relying on definition or data.
3. I try to have at least 4-5 points under each subheading. These days I am focusing more on substantiation with data or examples. I am also trying to convey the idea using keywords more e.g. rather than writing "lack of infrastructure" somewhere and "we do not have adequate infrastructure" elsewhere, just writing "infrastructure deficit" everywhere. But sometimes I end up taking too much time to generate enough points.
4. In conclusion, I write way forward and then one or two line including some "acche" words e.g. SDGs/ atmanirbhara bharat, new India etc. Here, I am thinking that I need to use constitutional articles more. DPSPs and FDs can be used in almost all subjects.
In ethics, I am facing serious time problem. Just finished a half length test in 2 hours. Here i think the main problem is I am doing too much "bol bacchan" in case studies. Need to keep them point wise and straightforward: options, what I will do (point wise, short term, long term), justification and conclusion. In theory questions, again at some places I am taking too much time in generating points.
With the limited knowledge that I have with respect to answer writing, I would like to address these questions :
1. While reading question, I make sure I am reading it with all the concentration, I highlight the important keywords along the way and finally after completion have a closer look at the underlined to get an idea of where to attack on question. These sometimes become my subheading too.
2. I prefer more of a natural flow in exam. So I see question, I think of a relevant intro - which is more often a fact, a background story or some simpler defination and then according to the highlighted thing, have a subtopic and write points as they come. But there is an issue which is prioritisation, sometimes I loose priority and sub-classification.
3. That's more of a questions I would like to ask all of you as well, If like there are 5 points , I don't see any requirement or sense of dividing them under PESTEL heading, I mean it won't really look good to have a point under each heading. I have seen many topper copies as well, I have never seen these PESTEL sub-classifications or any other thing
So if you guys could suggest with some example from own copy I would really like to see.
About the second point, I do the same thing. I too face the problem of ordering. Points don't come to mind in the order of priority. Also, sometimes i don't write about all the subparts equally. I write too much in the first one, then there is little time and space left for the other ones. That is why I was thinking maybe taking a few seconds to visualise the answer just after reading the question may help.
With the limited knowledge that I have with respect to answer writing, I would like to address these questions :
1. While reading question, I make sure I am reading it with all the concentration, I highlight the important keywords along the way and finally after completion have a closer look at the underlined to get an idea of where to attack on question. These sometimes become my subheading too.
2. I prefer more of a natural flow in exam. So I see question, I think of a relevant intro - which is more often a fact, a background story or some simpler defination and then according to the highlighted thing, have a subtopic and write points as they come. But there is an issue which is prioritisation, sometimes I loose priority and sub-classification.
3. That's more of a questions I would like to ask all of you as well, If like there are 5 points , I don't see any requirement or sense of dividing them under PESTEL heading, I mean it won't really look good to have a point under each heading. I have seen many topper copies as well, I have never seen these PESTEL sub-classifications or any other thing
So if you guys could suggest with some example from own copy I would really like to see.
About the PESTEL thing, I meant it as a thinking tool to generate points, not to write points under these subheadings.
