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.