2

2.5
4
4.5
3
3
3.5
4.5
3
3.5
5
4
3.5
8.5
7.5
8
8.5
8.5
7

94
Dear Sarthak,

You have answered all the questions. Keep it up.

1. You have answered many questions well. However, in few of your answers such as nos. 1(a), 1
(b),5(a),7, contextual understanding is missing. Read the questions carefully to understand its
demand. Also, you have missed answering some parts in many questions (Refer to answer
no.10,14.)

2. Content is adequate in a few answers however,broadly there is a need to improve the content.
There is a scope to improve specificity and relevance of your content. Refer answer nos. 3(b), 4(a),
5(b),8. Focus more on variety of relevant arguments and then substantiate them with relevant
examples. Keep your arguments and ideas multidimensional and succinct. Add analytical
perspectives wherever required (Refer to answer nos. 5(a), 5(b)). In case studies, there is a scope to
improve. Be innovative while in exploring the options available etc. Focus on 'how' aspect of
addressing a problem.

3. The legibility of your handwriting is an issue to be taken seriously. Certain alphabets can be
made more legible such as r,o,c,e,v (Refer to ans nos. 1(a), 3(a), 14). You may increase the font size
of your handwriting. Avoid grammatical errors, any ambiguity in expression (Refer ans no. 1(a),1
(b), 5(a)), and work on sentence formation (Refer to ans nos.1(a), 2(a), 5(a)). Use the appropriate
case of alphabets (Ans no. 4(b)). Avoid shortforms (Refer to ans no.2(b),3(b)).

4. You have introduced few answers well. Broadly, there is a scope of improvement in
introductions, especially in case studies. Refer to answer nos. 1(a), 2(a), 2(b), 4(b). Introduction
should be short and precise and aligned to the demand of the questions.

5. The structure of few answers is ok. A scope of improvement is there in many answers such as
answer nos. 1(b),5(b), 8,13,14. Organise your content systematically. Prioritise points.
In case studies, it is not required to mention 'the stakeholders' compulsorily unless asked (as
highlighted in ans no.13). Attempt to address the concerns of all stakeholders in the solutions
provided by you.
Wherever required, use subheads, boxes, bullets and numberings etc to improve presentation (Refer
ans nos. 2(b),5(b),10). Draw proper flowcharts/illustrations wherever a scope exists (Ans no 1(b)).

6. Broadly, conclusions are Ok. A scope of improvement exists in few answers. Refer to answer
nos. 1(b), 3(b).

All the best!

Improve legibility

Improve sentence formation

 Avoid spelling errors

Improve legibility

You have missed the context. Focus on visible tangible environment. The statement in the
question is an established view (Human-nature relations). Design your arguments and examples
accordingly (In line with Environmental ethics).
You have randomly sprinkled the examples.
Prioritise arguments over the examples. Choose specific examples to fit the context well.
Express your ideas in a concise and specific manner.
Structure of the answer needs improvement.
Align your introduction
with the broader demand
of the question.
 How this is relevant in the context?

Avoid ambiguity in
expressions

Conclusion needs improvement.

You haven't answered the question adequately.

Contextual understanding is missing. Read the question carefully to understand its demand.
Here you are required to focus on 'how' accountability forms the foundation of good
governance. Also how it complements efficiency in the long run.
Add relevant examples to substantiate your arguments.
Mention briefly 'why' accountability and efficiency appear antithetical to each other. Add
relevant examples.
The structure of the answer is not proper.
There is a scope to draw a schematic for terms 'accountability' and 'efficiency' in good
governance.
 Introduction is ok. Still a
scope of improvement is
there.

Improve sentence formation

Avoid shortforms
Prioritise more relevant points such as truthfulness, trusteeship, sarvodaya (inclusiveness) etc

Conclusion needs
improvement.

Mention adequately how such ideals help in dealing with the pandemic.
Explore perspectives from other dimensions while writing the relevance.
 Put only relevant
arguments that fit
into the context.
Introduction needs
improvement.

You may use an appropriate subheading here.

Avoid shortforms
 Improve the legibility of your handwriting

Good

Content is ok. Put diverse arguments.

Structure of the answer needs improvement.
Make the distinction between 'c' and 'v' legible.

'r' and 'v'

'c'and 'e'
 Keep your
arguments
multidimensional.

Conclusion is ok. Reframe the

sentence to fit into the context
properly.

Structure of the answer has a scope of improvement. First, mention what Einstein meant by the
statement and argue on the relevance of the same in the contemporary world.
You may briefly mention about the ills of contemporary world. Eg- Most of the people taking
less principled stand and having an opportunistic inclinations.
You may begin the answer by explaining what the original author meant by the given statement.

Avoid shortforms
 Conclusion needs
improvement. Align it with
the broader demand of the
question.

Add multiple arguments (dimensions) for why apathy is not good for the individual as well as
the society and substantiate well. Focus more on diversity of arguments which fit into broader
context.
Structure of the answer needs improvement.
 Attempt at
introduction is ok.
Still a scope of
improvement is
there.

Briefly explain your understanding of 'Global Commons'. Then, you can

provide examples of usage of such resources without a coordinated plan.
Eg-Result as Air pollution

How is this an ethical

challenge?

Good

Put more specific content.

Focus on diversity of arguments rather than multiple examples. Use such examples to
substantiate the arguments.

Conclusion has a scope of

improvement.

Add more of community level examples.

 You may use the
same information
and reframe the
sentence to make
the introduction
more direct and
aligned to the
demand of the
question.

Bring more clarity

Use appropriate alphabet case

Maintain coherence in the answer. Design the subheads appropriately. Here both subheads
appear contradictory to each other. Establish clearly why code of conduct is not sufficient.

Arguments are good.

Conclusion is ok.

You may mention how internalisation of values helps in setting the code of conduct in future
etc.
Introduction is ok. A
scope of improvement is
there.

Improve sentence
formation
 Bring more clarity

Conclusion has a scope of

improvement.

Contextual understanding is missing in your answer. Establish how the nature of the state is a
deciding force behind the probity in governance. Provide specific examples to substantiate the
arguments.
How political will shapes it.
How mere presence of law is not sufficient.
 Attempt at
introduction is ok.

You may put an appropriate subheading here for better presentation.

How is this
prevalent today?

Bring more clarity.

 Conclusion is ok.

You have disproportionately focused on colonial bureaucratic characteristics.

The focus should be on 'why' 21st century bureaucratic values are important and colonial
mindset can't suffice (in order to march ahead).
 A scope to improve the
argument exists.

( )
 Good attempt
Substantiate why you consider him ethically sound.
Conclude briefly.
Introduction is ok. Still a scope of improvement exists.

Design the subheading appropriately.

Focus on 'how' people's participation and access to information shapes the good governance.
Provide arguments from many dimensions.
Add relevant examples.
The 'information' part is inadequately answered.
You may introduce
by mentioning your
understanding of
the term.
Your understanding of the term is not clear. It means having moral integrity in regard to
consideration of right and wrong.

The structure of the answer needs improvement. You may situate the
examples next to the arguments for substantiation. It will improve the
flow in your answer.

Conclusion is ok.
 Identify other stakeholders such as
 Other women sarpanch
 Society at large

Identify other ethical and governance issues.

 Elaborate the step

Improve the legibility of your handwriting.

Bring more clarity

Explore other options.

Clarity
 Clarity

Good
Good introduction.
Add ethical dimension. Prioritise that. Eg- Selfishness and lack of empathy etc
You may put a subheading here.
You haven't adequately answered the subpart 'find solutions to the problems..'. Explore other
issues. You may not restrict only to ethical issues.
Put an appropriate subheading here for better presentation.

Add the perspectives of Least developed

countries and small island nations,
indigenous populations etc.

This point can be clubbed with the 1st one.

 Not asked in the
question so not
required to be
mentioned. You may
structure your answer
keeping in
consideration such
stakeholders.
You may briefly introduce the case study by highlighting the broader issue.
 You may use a box for subheading for better
presentation

Identify other issues. Eg- Violence against women and gender empowerment dimension, impact
on other NGOs etc

Illegible
 Improve legibility

Your expressions lack organisation and

clarity. Argue succinctly to justify your
stand. Also you may add the ways to deal
with the issues arising out of the chosen
option.
Mention the steps to prevent such occurrences in the future.
Good. Add a sentence
highlighting the issue at
hand.
Explore other dimensions. Eg-It may have repercussions on corporate ethics too.
Mention the step clearly.

Clarity
Explore other options such as leaving the matter entirely on the director in charge.
How would you then deal with its cons. You may briefly mention. You may argue in line of how
withholding transfers should not be a priority to decide our course of actions.

Good attempt
Be direct and specific. More specifically, it is the case
involving development led displacement of local community.
 Good

Unless explicitly asked, it is not always necessary to mention the stakeholders. You may write
this part on your rough page and can involve their concerns while answering the demand of the
question.
 Read the question carefully. It doesn't demand you to
mention different choices and evaluate them. Mention
the course of action you would take and substantiate that.

clarity
Begin from here.
Fair answer. Bring out the ways to convince the NGO and rope in its participation.
Focus on 'why' aspect of actions too.
Reframe the sentence to establish a flow in the answer.
Good points
Don't mention explicitly. It conveys an impression that you don't consider them pleasing.
 You have mixed up part 'a' and part 'b'. Answer each parts of the question separately.

Focus on 'how' you would ensure that the use of such technology is ethical.