Answer Writing in IAS Mains - How to Write "Critically Analyse" and "Evaluate" Answers - Video 2/4
Summary
TLDRThis educational video focuses on mastering answer writing for mains examinations, particularly for the UPSC. It discusses two crucial directives: 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate.' 'Critically analyze' involves a subjective, balanced approach to dissect a topic into components, providing for and against arguments, and concluding with a mild stance. 'Evaluate,' in contrast, demands an objective, evidence-based assessment, requiring academic sources to support one's verdict on arguments or research findings. The video aims to equip students with strategies for effective answer writing.
Takeaways
- 📝 The video discusses two important directives for answer writing in exams: 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate'.
- 🔍 'Critically analyze' does not mean to criticize but to provide a deeper insight into a topic.
- 🤔 Critical analysis is subjective and requires justifying one's perspective with balanced arguments for and against each component of the topic.
- 📚 To critically analyze, break down the topic into components, discuss interconnections, and provide a balanced conclusion.
- 🚫 Avoid taking a purely negative or positive stance; maintain a mild approach in criticism or appraisal.
- 📊 'Evaluate' involves a quantitative, objective evaluation based on evidence, unlike subjective opinion.
- 🔑 For 'evaluate' directives, provide evidence from academic sources to support your agreement or disagreement with the arguments or research findings.
- 🗣️ The video emphasizes the importance of academic integrity in answer writing, especially when evaluating arguments or research.
- 📈 The example of evaluating government efforts to curb economic slowdown illustrates the need for evidence-based arguments.
- 📚 The video series aims to help students master answer writing, with the next installment covering additional important directives.
Q & A
What are the two main directives discussed in the video for answer writing in mains examination?
-The two main directives discussed in the video are 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate'.
What is the primary misconception about the directive 'critically analyze'?
-The primary misconception is that 'critically analyze' means criticizing something, whereas it actually means providing a deeper insight into the subject matter without necessarily criticizing it.
How should one approach a question with the directive 'critically analyze'?
-One should approach a 'critically analyze' question by breaking the topic into components, providing for and against arguments for each component, and concluding with a balanced approach that may lean towards either supporting or opposing the topic, but always in a mild manner.
What does the directive 'evaluate' entail in the context of answer writing?
-The directive 'evaluate' requires a quantitative and objective evaluation based on evidence. It involves providing an opinion or verdict on the extent to which one agrees or disagrees with the arguments or research findings, supported by academic evidence.
Why is it important to provide evidence when answering a question with the directive 'evaluate'?
-Providing evidence is important because it makes the evaluation objective and academic, which is essential for UPSC mains examination answers. It also adds credibility to the arguments and ensures that the evaluation is not based on subjective opinions.
How does one conclude an answer when the directive is 'critically analyze'?
-When concluding an answer with the directive 'critically analyze', one should take a balanced approach, acknowledging both the pros and cons, and explicitly state whether the overall analysis supports or opposes the topic, while maintaining a mild tone of criticism or appraisal.
What is an example of how to apply the directive 'critically analyze' to a specific topic?
-An example of applying 'critically analyze' could be to analyze the proposed surrogacy regulation bill by breaking it into definitions, conditions, and restrictions, providing for and against arguments for each, and concluding with a balanced view that may support or oppose the bill while highlighting areas that need improvement.
What are the key differences between the directives 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate'?
-The key differences are that 'critically analyze' is subjective and requires a deeper insight with a balanced conclusion, while 'evaluate' is objective, evidence-based, and requires providing a quantitative evaluation with academic sources to support the verdict.
Why are the directives 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate' considered important for mains examination?
-These directives are important because they are frequently used by UPSC in their question papers, and mastering them is crucial for scoring well in the mains examination. They test the candidate's ability to analyze and evaluate complex issues, which is a key skill for a civil servant.
How can one ensure their answer to an 'evaluate' directive is not subjective?
-To ensure an answer to an 'evaluate' directive is not subjective, one must base their evaluation on evidence from academic sources, reports, or research findings, and clearly cite these sources to support their arguments and conclusions.
Outlines
📚 Mastering Critical Analysis in Answer Writing
This paragraph introduces the concept of 'critically analyze' as an important directive in UPSC mains examination answer writing. It clarifies that 'critically analyze' does not equate to criticism but rather a deeper insight into the subject matter. The paragraph emphasizes the need for a subjective approach, where each student's analysis may differ due to inherent subjectivity. The process involves breaking down the topic into components, providing for and against arguments for each part, and concluding with a balanced approach that justifies the analysis. An example is given regarding the analysis of a surrogacy regulation bill, highlighting the need for a mild criticism or appraisal based on the arguments presented.
🔍 Understanding the Directive 'Evaluate' in Answer Writing
The second paragraph delves into the directive 'evaluate', contrasting it with 'critically analyze' by emphasizing its objective and evidence-based nature. It explains that 'evaluate' requires a quantitative assessment supported by evidence, often from academic sources. The paragraph outlines the process of evaluating an argument or research finding, which involves agreeing or disagreeing with it to some extent and providing evidence for the stance taken. An example is provided with the question of evaluating the Government of India's efforts to curb economic slowdown, stressing the importance of academic sources and evidence in forming an argument.
📈 The Importance of Evidence in UPSC Answer Writing
The final paragraph summarizes the importance of the directives 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate' in UPSC mains examination. It stresses the necessity of providing evidence from academic sources to support arguments, which is crucial for scoring well in the examination. The paragraph also hints at upcoming videos that will cover more directives, encouraging students to stay tuned for further guidance on mastering answer writing.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Critically Analyze
💡Directives
💡Subjectivity
💡Components
💡For and Against Arguments
💡Evaluate
💡Quantitative Evaluation
💡Evidence-based
💡Academic Sources
💡Balanced Approach
Highlights
Introduction to the second video in a series on mastering answer writing for mains examination.
Discussion on the first directive 'critically analyze' and its importance in UPSC exams.
Clarification that 'critically analyze' does not mean to criticize but to provide deeper insight.
Explanation of the subjectivity involved in critical analysis and the need to justify one's analysis.
Procedure for answering 'critically analyze' questions by breaking down the topic into components.
Importance of providing for and against arguments for each component in critical analysis.
The necessity of taking a balanced approach and concluding with a mild stance in critical analysis.
Example of critically analyzing the proposed surrogacy regulation bill.
Introduction to the second directive 'evaluate' and its difference from 'critically analyze'.
Emphasis on the objective and evidence-based nature of 'evaluate' directives.
Guidance on providing a quantitative evaluation with evidence from academic sources.
Explanation of how to handle questions that require agreement or disagreement with arguments or research findings.
Example of evaluating the Government of India's efforts to curb the economic slowdown.
The requirement to mention sources and reports to support arguments in 'evaluate' directives.
Summary of the importance of 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate' directives in UPSC exams.
Anticipation of the next video covering more important directives for answer writing.
Transcripts
hello students welcome to this video
this is the second video in a series of
whole video in which we are helping you
to master the art of answer writing in
the previous video you learned about the
three directives that help you in answer
writing in mains examination in this
video we are going to discuss two other
very important directives the first
directive that we are going to discuss
is critically analyze and the second
active we are going to analyze is what
we are going to see is evaluate these
two are one of the most favorite
directives that UPC asked almost in
every question or almost in every paper
all right you can see many passed your
question paper where they have seen
evaluate this more critically analyze
this he don't know directives someone a
boss the others already had to get good
marks in your mains answer writing chili
let us first begin the first directive
that is critically analyze so as you can
see the word critically analyze it's
make word critically many times Joe's
student pencil writing practice nahi kar
Joe students plainly directives Deborah
hypotonic are they they are not able to
understand what the word critically
actually means and they take it
synonymous for what criticism so the
first and the foremost thing that you
should remember about critically analyze
is that critically analyze does not mean
that you have to criticize something
critically means that you have to give a
deeper insight and how you are going to
give the deeper insight what are you two
doing critical analysis not to criticize
but first you have to provide the answer
or form of subjectivity this critically
analyze is a subjective question alright
you are the one who is critically
analyzing aspect we are subjective
easily here every s parent has a
different way of critically evaluating
or critically analyzing something and
because it is different from each and
every student there is an inherent
subjectivity your critical analysis may
be different from your friends critical
analysis and therefore no critical
analysis is good or bad only thing is
that you have to justify how you are
critically analyzing it so it is a
subjective answer writing
then as part of the procedure to answer
the question related to critically
analyze what you have to do is you have
to break the topic in hand into
components there's a question of the
pooch alga which cook parts with todya
whose question get kidnapped parts name
was Moscow break Kuro and then what you
have to do is you have to show an
interconnection between the parts with
showing the interconnection between the
parts next thing that you have to doing
critical analysis is that you have to
provide for and against arguments for
each of the component Jo component of
exam encouraged Jo component of analysis
Karnataka whose component kept foreign
against arguments provide Callaghan
along with stablishing the connection
between each component all right
after you establish foreign against
argument for each part you have to
conclude the answer to the question
starting with critical analysis while
you are concluding you should not just
focus on either the pro arguments or the
against arguments all right you don't
have to either focus entirely on four
arguments or entirely on against
argument what you have to do is you have
to take a balanced approach lick in you
are always advise to take a position if
you think that of a particular question
the four arguments are more heavier than
the against arguments then explicitly
say that key since the pros overpower
the cons therefore the argument stands
or you can take the four case and if you
think that it has more loopholes and
negative consequences then you criticize
it but in a very mild manner the
criticism has to be mild or the
appraisal has to be my yogi is question
McDonough faces dakaru Haftarah Jukka
don't know when ludecke REO that there
is a good there is a bad it may be
possible that good may be slightly
better than bad
bad maybe slightly more than good in
both the cases take a mild manner say
that yes
since the positives are more than the
negatives the case stands however
however there are also negative
consequences which need to be corrected
all right so you are taking a balanced
approach even taking a position all
right
take for example for example there is a
question critically analyze the proposed
sorrow giessen surrogacy regulation bill
the question is critically analysed the
proposed surrogacy regulation bill these
questions of critical analysis hurt
student alloc Booga so what you have to
do as part of the procedure first you
have to see what is the topic that you
have to analyze the topic is proposal BC
regulation bill second thing that you
have to do is break this particular
topic into different components there
will be definitions there will be
conditions of surrogacy and there will
be restrictions on surrogacy now what
you do is you have to provide for and
against arguments on each part whether
you support the definition or you don't
support the definition whether you
whether the conditions are good for
surrogacy the prescribed conditions for
surrogacy are good justified or they are
not justified and whether the
restrictions that are imposed on
surrogacy whether you support them if
you support them by whether you do not
support them then tell why not
so what you are doing is it body's a
topic co-op components may break
whatever component car a critical
analysis term your for and against
argument in the conclusion either you
will support the surrogacy regulation
bill or you will oppose it but at the
same time in a very mild manner case a I
cannot suppose bilko support Carrillo
topology it is a good piece of
legislation however there are many
negative or negative consequences that
may come up which need to be cured there
which need to be prevented so this is
what is basically known by the term that
you have to take a conclusion or you
have to take a position while concluding
but in a very mild man
so this is the critical analysis now we
are going to discuss the second
directive that is evaluate evaluate is
basically a quantitative evaluation that
is what is quantitative you are not
giving it an subjective evaluation it is
a objective evaluation and anything that
is objective is always evidence-based
you are evaluating something and
commenting about the evaluation that you
have done that evolution should not be
subjective in your opinion or in
something no you have to provide the
evidence so any directive that is
associated with evaluated you have to
provide a quantitative evaluation and
being quantitative it should be evidence
driven you have to provide evidence for
whatever evaluation you are doing all
right so he will do it basically we want
you to provide opinion or verdict with
respect to the extent to which you agree
or disagree with the arguments of the
research finding of the question all
right what it is it is actually
provisioning of your opinion or verdict
with respect to the extent to which
arguments or research findings you agree
or you disagree with so you will always
see that this question will contain an
argument that needs to be evaluated it
will contain a research finding that
needs to be evaluated now there are two
circumstances that may happen either you
will agree either you will agree with
the research finding or you will agree
with the argument or you will disagree
with the argument in both the cases your
evidences should not be driven
subjectively your evidences should rest
in some academic source all right that
makes this question highly academic any
question that starts with the directive
evaluate it need to be provided
evidences and evidences should come from
academic sources and that
pleases the academic question of your
answer he will help to mention the
reports you will have to mention the
sources of your arguments and your
evidences to which to some extent you
agree or to some extent you don't agree
now how to better understand this
directive let us see a question which is
a quite contemporary question and the
question reads evaluate government of
India's effort to curb the recent
slowdown in Indian economy the question
is evaluate government of India's effort
to curb the recent slowdown in Indian
economy this is a argument based
question it is same as argument whether
these particular reforms will bring a
change in the economic slowdown scenario
or not either you will take a position
yes they will or they will not or you
will take a position to some extent they
may and to some extent they will not in
both the cases provide the argument and
when you are providing the argument you
will have to provide the source of your
argument it cannot be subjectively
coming from your own intelligence it is
perfectly fine but the source has to be
mentioned if this report of the
government has mentioned that if we go
for relaxation of the FDI norms it can
curb the economic slowdown to this
extent all right so that shows that yes
you have studied the topic in totality
if you will not mention the sources and
you just give non evidence based
evaluation that is qualitative
assessment and that will be the answer
to the directive assessment and not
evaluate and you will not be given the
adequate marks that you deserve so
summing up evaluation is simply academic
question in which you have to either
agree to some excellent or disagree to
some extent and go and in both the cases
provide the evidences for making this
particular stand if you agree to some
extent why provide the evidences if you
don't take it to some extent why provide
the evidences so without mentioning the
reports without mentioning the sources
without giving the credibility to your
arguments he will not be compensated
adequately so these are the two very
very important directives from ups point
of view you write paper 1 paper - paper
3 and also paper 4 critically analyze
and evaluate directives will be found in
plenty of questions I hope these board
directives are quite clear to you in the
next video we are going to take up
another very important directives so
keep tuned to this platform that's all
from my side have a great day take care
bye
Weitere ähnliche Videos ansehen
Research Methodology - Attitude Change
5 Steps of the Academic Writing Process | Scribbr 🎓
Primary vs. Secondary Sources: The Differences Explained | Scribbr 🎓
What is Critical Thinking?
Chat GPT for teachers: Assessing Student Learning
AP Seminar: Individual Written Argument (IWA) – Directions and Rubric
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)