We have been getting queries for 2 questions constantly and the opinions are divided on this.Here are our analysis and referral sources for the same.
Which of the following statement is/are the advantage/advantages of practising drip irrigation?
1. Reduction in weed
2. Reduction in soil salinity
3. Reduction in soil erosion
Select the correct answer using the code given below.
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 3 only
(c) 1 and 3 only
(d) None of the above is an advantage of practising drip irrigation.
Our Logic – Drip irrigation usually takes place in plain region and not in undulating terrains and it is costly too.It delivers both water and nutrient to the root of the plant directly thus reducing water usage.There by , it does not waste by watering the whole field.Weed can grow when there is water and nutrient available to it , but drip irrigation eliminates this option so reduced weed.Similar logic can be applied to salinity , when a land is wet through capillary action the salt gets accumulated at the top layer, but drip irrigation does not wet the whole land so reduces salinity.Moreover, soil erosion is less when the whole land is wet but aeolian erosion increases when the land is dry and drip irrigation does not wet the whole land so does not reduce erosion per se.Elimination can come in handy for this question.
Reference – We already gave this in our solution key
However , we also tried to find some credible source that can shed some light on this and here is a screenshot of a book –Environmental Issues and Solutions: A Modular Approach By Norman Myers, Scott Spoolman
The reason we take the book as credible because , first of all it is a book not an article , hence more authentic than article or posts over internet.Secondly, it is co-authored by Norman Myers , who is known to define the the term bio-diversity hotspot.Hence more credible coming from an environment specialist.Here is a screenshot of the section of the book for your reference:-
Also the options gives no room to accommodate both 2 and 3 and if one has to choose between the two then 1 and 2 is more justifiable than 1 and 3.
Consider the following statements:
1. The Chief Secretary in a State is appointed by the Governor of that State.
2. The Chief Secretary in a State has a fixed tenure.
Which of the statements given above
(a) 1 only
(b) 2 only
(c) Both 1 and 2
(d) Neither 1 nor 2
Logic – Appointment is an executive function and chief secretary being a central govt employ has to be appointed by governor.This does not mean he is chosen by the governor , it just means he is appointed by the hand and seal of the governor and that’s is what appointment exactly means.The CM can recommend the candidates to the governor to appoint.This seems logical in our.opinion , also state Information commissioner has a similar rank of chief secretary and he is appointed by governor with aid and advise of the CM and cabinet.ARC recommended for fixed tenure but it was rejected.
Reference – We also cross-checked with few people who have access to this kind of information being in government administrative positions and our answer and logic seems correct in this case as well.Lets see what UPSC has to say on this.
Hope this helps and clears the air.