Answer Writing in IAS Mains - How to Write "Critically Analyse" and "Evaluate" Answers - Video 2/4

Summary

This 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

00:00

📚 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.

05:01

🔍 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.

10:02

📈 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.

Keywords

💡Critically Analyze

Critically analyze refers to the process of providing a deeper insight into a topic by breaking it down into components and examining each part's pros and cons. In the video, this term is used to explain how students should approach questions that require critical analysis, emphasizing that it is not about criticizing but about providing a balanced view with a subjective touch. For instance, when discussing the surrogacy regulation bill, the video instructs to analyze its definitions, conditions, and restrictions, and then form a balanced conclusion based on the arguments for and against each component.

💡Directives

Directives in the context of the video are the specific instructions given in examination questions that guide students on how to approach their answers. The video focuses on two key directives: 'critically analyze' and 'evaluate'. These directives are crucial for students to understand as they dictate the nature and depth of the analysis required in their answers.

💡Subjectivity

Subjectivity in the video is mentioned in relation to the critical analysis directive, indicating that each student's analysis may differ based on their perspective. It is a key aspect of the 'critically analyze' directive, where students are encouraged to provide their own insights and interpretations, as long as they justify their analysis. The video clarifies that subjectivity does not mean arbitrary opinions but rather a personal yet justified perspective on the topic.

💡Components

Components, as discussed in the video, refer to the individual parts of a topic that need to be analyzed when critically analyzing. The video suggests breaking down complex topics into smaller components to provide a comprehensive analysis. For example, when analyzing a bill, one might consider its definitions, conditions, and restrictions as separate components to be individually evaluated.

💡For and Against Arguments

For and against arguments are a part of the critical analysis process where students are expected to present both the positive aspects (for arguments) and the negative aspects (against arguments) of each component of the topic. The video emphasizes the importance of providing a balanced view by considering both sides of the argument, which is essential for a thorough critical analysis.

💡Evaluate

Evaluate, as a directive, is used in the video to describe a type of question that requires a quantitative and evidence-based assessment. Unlike 'critically analyze', which is subjective, 'evaluate' demands an objective analysis supported by evidence. The video provides an example of evaluating the government's efforts to curb an economic slowdown, where the student must provide evidence from academic sources to support their evaluation.

💡Quantitative Evaluation

Quantitative evaluation is mentioned in the context of the 'evaluate' directive, indicating that the assessment should be based on measurable evidence rather than personal opinions. The video stresses that students should provide numerical data or evidence from research findings to support their evaluations, making the analysis more academic and credible.

💡Evidence-based

Evidence-based is a term used to describe the type of support required for an 'evaluate' directive. The video explains that students must back their evaluations with concrete evidence, such as reports or academic research, rather than relying on personal beliefs or assumptions. This approach lends credibility and objectivity to the analysis.

💡Academic Sources

Academic sources are emphasized in the video as the preferred type of evidence for supporting evaluations in answers. The video advises students to cite reports, research findings, or scholarly articles when providing evidence for their evaluations. This practice enhances the academic rigor of the answer and demonstrates a comprehensive understanding of the topic.

💡Balanced Approach

A balanced approach is recommended in the video for concluding answers to 'critically analyze' directives. It involves considering both the positive and negative aspects of the topic and forming a conclusion that acknowledges both sides. The video illustrates how to take a mild stance, either in support or against, while highlighting the need for improvements or acknowledging the strengths of the topic under analysis.

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