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
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.