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
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.