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.
Our Complete Solution Key with Analysis
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
is/are correct?
(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.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Petrol in India is cheaper than in countries like Hong Kong, Germany and the UK but costlier than in China, Brazil, Japan, the US, Russia, Pakistan and Sri Lanka, a Bank of Baroda Economics Research report showed.
Rising fuel prices in India have led to considerable debate on which government, state or central, should be lowering their taxes to keep prices under control.
The rise in fuel prices is mainly due to the global price of crude oil (raw material for making petrol and diesel) going up. Further, a stronger dollar has added to the cost of crude oil.
Amongst comparable countries (per capita wise), prices in India are higher than those in Vietnam, Kenya, Ukraine, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Venezuela. Countries that are major oil producers have much lower prices.
In the report, the Philippines has a comparable petrol price but has a per capita income higher than India by over 50 per cent.
Countries which have a lower per capita income like Kenya, Bangladesh, Nepal, Pakistan, and Venezuela have much lower prices of petrol and hence are impacted less than India.
“Therefore there is still a strong case for the government to consider lowering the taxes on fuel to protect the interest of the people,” the report argued.
India is the world’s third-biggest oil consuming and importing nation. It imports 85 per cent of its oil needs and so prices retail fuel at import parity rates.
With the global surge in energy prices, the cost of producing petrol, diesel and other petroleum products also went up for oil companies in India.
They raised petrol and diesel prices by Rs 10 a litre in just over a fortnight beginning March 22 but hit a pause button soon after as the move faced criticism and the opposition parties asked the government to cut taxes instead.
India imports most of its oil from a group of countries called the ‘OPEC +’ (i.e, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Russia, etc), which produces 40% of the world’s crude oil.
As they have the power to dictate fuel supply and prices, their decision of limiting the global supply reduces supply in India, thus raising prices
The government charges about 167% tax (excise) on petrol and 129% on diesel as compared to US (20%), UK (62%), Italy and Germany (65%).
The abominable excise duty is 2/3rd of the cost, and the base price, dealer commission and freight form the rest.
Here is an approximate break-up (in Rs):
a)Base Price | 39 |
b)Freight | 0.34 |
c) Price Charged to Dealers = (a+b) | 39.34 |
d) Excise Duty | 40.17 |
e) Dealer Commission | 4.68 |
f) VAT | 25.35 |
g) Retail Selling Price | 109.54 |
Looked closely, much of the cost of petrol and diesel is due to higher tax rate by govt, specifically excise duty.
So the question is why government is not reducing the prices ?
India, being a developing country, it does require gigantic amount of funding for its infrastructure projects as well as welfare schemes.
However, we as a society is yet to be tax-compliant. Many people evade the direct tax and that’s the reason why govt’s hands are tied. Govt. needs the money to fund various programs and at the same time it is not generating enough revenue from direct taxes.
That’s the reason why, govt is bumping up its revenue through higher indirect taxes such as GST or excise duty as in the case of petrol and diesel.
Direct taxes are progressive as it taxes according to an individuals’ income however indirect tax such as excise duty or GST are regressive in the sense that the poorest of the poor and richest of the rich have to pay the same amount.
Does not matter, if you are an auto-driver or owner of a Mercedes, end of the day both pay the same price for petrol/diesel-that’s why it is regressive in nature.
But unlike direct tax where tax evasion is rampant, indirect tax can not be evaded due to their very nature and as long as huge no of Indians keep evading direct taxes, indirect tax such as excise duty will be difficult for the govt to reduce, because it may reduce the revenue and hamper may programs of the govt.