HFC - Lubricant question.
We need to carefully read the question. The question is not asking whether HFC can be used as lubricant or not. Question is simply asking whether HFC can be used in "making" of Lubricant or not. Catch is in the word "making".
For example Electricity can not be used as lubricant. But Electricity can be used in making of Lubricant. The word "making" has made the question very broad.
Also it is noteworthy that, though HFC can not be directly used as lubricant, but HFCs can be used in making of spray based lubricant. There are many spray type lubricant which uses HFCs.
For reference I'm attaching the question below. You can notice the word "maing" in it.
Q. Consider the following:
1.Aerosols
2.Foam agents
3.Fire retardants
4.Lubricants
In themakingof how many of the above are hydrofluorocarbons used?
By this logic answer should be - "D" (All four correct).
Though UPSC might as well give answer as - "C" (Three pair).
Any chances of the cut off being in the range of 75 to 80? I mean not gng above 80? I mean for gen category.
Which questions are doubtful for you? And have you treated them as negatives or positive while reaching at this score? A lot will depend on this.
If 75-80 is your most conservative estimate, while about 90 is your most optimistic estimate then you might clear. But if 75-80 is the most optimistic estimate, while the most conservative one being less than 70 then it's very tricky situation.
(Above image is of Commitment - 1 of GCM)
Internal Migration Question -
Commitment 1 of GCM mentions - "INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS". Coincidentally Prelims question also mentions that - "GCM addresses internal migration or "INTERNALLY DISPLACED PEOPLE" in it's commitment".
I think question has been lifted from here as it has high degree of language similarity.
Below is the link for the same (screen shot attached as well) -
https://www.migrationdataportal.org/global-compact-for-migration
@adi5manit330 pehla para me likha hai international migration in all its dimension..Kaha likha hai internal migration?m unable to see
Guru Question dekho Prelims ka - Question me likha hai internal migration "OR" internally displaced people. "Or" means internal migration ya fir internally displaced people dono me se ek cheej bhi mentioned hogi GCM commitment ya objectives me to correct ho jayega statement.
Comitment - 1 me its mentioned - Internally displaced persons.
I have attached screenshot of the same. Same could also be verified upon visiting the link that I have provided.
In addition to it -
Objective mentions - Local migration.
Commitment mentions - Internally displaced persons.
Yahi pucha hai question me. I don't think UPSC examiner would be more direct than this. Now after reading this atleast I have no doubt about the question.
From the language of the question it appears that Examiner has treated Finance Bill and Money Bill as two different entities.
If we consider Finace Bill and Money Bill to be same then the question becomes pointless.
Clearly there is a drafting issue in question. It could have been framed better.
In present form, Byjus has given answer as "B" (two only), this answer seems most appropriate (as per them, 1 & 2 correct, 3 incorrect, and they have treated Finance Bill to mean same as Financial Bill)
@Tejasjv ye sb theek hai.....lekin JS necessary?......B can also be right...?
Joint sitting is not necessary. Joint sitting (as in the case with ordinary Bill) can be called. But it is not necessary.
@adi5manit330 But there is another thing. Finance bill HAS to be passed in 75 days..........so I guess JS is necessary if deadlock isn't solved till then.....
But maybe I am again mixing things up...........
Your argument is - since Bill must be passed within 75 days therefore JS is necessary. But kindly note that JS does not guarantee that Bill will be passed. As JS can also reject the Bill (it depends on how numbers are stacked in JS). Hence the argument that for the Bill to pass JS is necessary, is not valid. JS does not guarantee passage within 75 days.
There might be some mixing up of concepts.
That finance bill can be interpreted as umbrella term for money and financial bills.......I put in many sources to validate........so.......C should also be a possible answer.Coming to the statement 3 of that question, "joint sitting become NECESSARY " thing........I felt and till now feel "In case of disagreement between LS and RS, JS becomes necessary to pass the bill..So filed for them to consider both interpretations and consider both A and C. I put sources for both. And argued how a candidate can interpret both ways.
Regarding statement - 3 -
We are inferring that question is asking to "pass" what's required. But question is not revolving around passage, it revolves around disagreement.
Below is what's written in statement - 3 of QP -
"In the case of disagreement between the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha... a joint sitting becomes necessary for Finance Bill."
Kindly note, nowhere it's written to pass or to not pass. It simply states in case of disagreement a joint sitting is necessary.
Moreover, if we treat Finance Bill as Money Bill then there is no provision for JS in case of Money Bill (Article 108) and if we treat Finance Bill as ordinary Bill then as per Article 108 of Constitution - in case of disagreement President "May" call for JS or May not. It's not necessary either.
Reference - Article 108
Point 50 says consumer lists are not intangible. So the answer to intagible question can be 2?also in hindi translation its written dark suchi.
None of the keys have considered it
Pre question was about intangible "INVESTMENT", this document is about intangible "ASSETS". May be the difference lies here.
It appears this document means that they are not intangible "assets", that does not mean they are tangible assets. It could simply also mean that these are not to be termed as "Assets".
To conclude full reading of document will be required. From this page it cannot be said that these are tangible or are not intangible investments.
zara socho.....
If the cutoff of SC ST category is falling too low........and UPSC decides ki UR me hum 1:12 le lenge.... par SC me 1:10....ye tho discrimination ho gaya na.....
Decisions like this get stuck in legitimate legal troubles...No?If the ratio is constant.....last year se zyada log pre qualify honi chahiye.......If they decrease the ratio overall .., then the gap between UR and SC cutoffs will be the same.
My point is simple...Ye 'insider sources' are doing bullshit using all the frenzy of aspirants. Attention tumhara......revenue unka.
Ratio is not fixed. UPSC can change these anytime whenever they find it necessary.
A question in our Prelims GS Paper-1, regarding Article 335 mentioned - "reservation policies made under Article 16(4) of the Constitution of India would be limited by Article 335 for maintenance of efficiency of the administration".
This is the reason why CSAT Paper-2 qualifying criteria is same (66 marks) for all. Candidates from reserved category are also required to score more than 66 marks at par with Open category candidates, so that efficiency of administration is not compromised.
Citing efficiency UPSC can also tweak ratios within a reasonable limit. It's their expertise and independence. In notification as well they have not promised a fixed ratio. They've provided a range.
Also it is a coincidence worth noticing that this is the year where people are worried about CSAT Cutoff and this is the same year where they have asked that Efficiency is relevant while recruiting People into Public service.
