You’re Losing Marks by Ignoring This Simple Formula | Shubham Sir’s UPSC Mains Class

Summary

The class explains how UPSC Mains directives and question wording should guide an answer’s structure. The instructor’s central advice is to read the full question carefully—ideally twice—before deciding what to write. Identify its keywords, determine whether it presents one direction or multiple sides, and use the directive to decide the response’s depth and balance.

Core Elements of Answer Writing

The instructor identifies four core aspects of answer writing:

• Content: The knowledge and points used in the answer.
• Understanding the demand: Decoding the question and deciding what it requires.
• Structure: Arranging the answer according to the demand and directive.
• Presentation: Communicating clearly, using examples, data, diagrams, or flowcharts where useful.

The session focuses mainly on understanding the demand and structuring the answer. Directives indicate the expected depth, shape the answer’s organization, and test different skills. For example, explain tests conceptual clarity, while analyze or critically evaluate tests analytical ability.

A Method for Decoding Questions

1. Read the question carefully, preferably twice.
2. Identify its keywords and all its demands. Make sure every part of the question is addressed.
3. Decide whether the question is unidirectional or bidirectional/multidimensional.
   • Unidirectional questions present one main line of inquiry, such as asking about the significance or potential of a technology.
   • Bidirectional or multidimensional questions point to two or more aspects, such as benefits and challenges, intended aims and actual results, or positive and negative effects.
4. Use the directive to determine depth and structure, especially when the question is unidirectional.
5. Apply an approximate space-allocation formula suited to the demand. Treat these ratios as guidelines, not rigid rules.
6. Substantiate relevant points with data, facts, examples, cases, diagrams, or flowcharts, as appropriate.
7. Address every part of the question, including any definition or explanation explicitly requested.

A key qualification is that the question statement can outweigh the directive. If a question clearly presents two sides, the answer should address both—even if the directive is discuss. If the question is unidirectional, the directive plays a larger role in deciding whether to stay focused on the stated demand or add a counterpoint.

Three Answer-Space Formulas

• 70/30: Spend about 70% of the answer developing the central demand or proposition, and use the remaining 30% for a counterpoint, limitations, or a brief way forward. The instructor associates this balance especially with directives such as discuss, comment, and elaborate.
• 60/40: For opinion-based questions such as “Do you agree?”, “Do you think?”, “In your opinion?”, or “To what extent?”, give more space to the position you support and the rest to counterarguments. The conclusion should make your view clear, even if it is balanced.
• 50/50: For directives such as analyze, evaluate, examine, assess, and critically assess/examine, give broadly equal attention to arguments on both sides, such as benefits and drawbacks or positive and negative impacts.

These are space-management guides, not formulas to apply mechanically. The question’s wording and dimensions should determine the final structure.

Guidance on Individual Directives

• Discuss: Present the significant viewpoints or dimensions of the topic. For a unidirectional question, the instructor suggests emphasizing the stated demand, often using a 70/30 balance. If the question itself contains opposing sides, address both.
• Comment: Give a brief assessment or opinion. The structure can resemble a discussion, but the conclusion should state your position rather than remain purely neutral.
• Enumerate: Cover a broad range of relevant points or dimensions. The instructor suggests including slightly more points than in a typical discussion answer.
• Elucidate / elaborate: Explain the idea rather than merely naming it. Develop the points and add relevant examples or supporting details. A limited counterpoint may also be appropriate.
• Illustrate: Support the explanation with examples, facts, or data. A diagram may also help. The example should clearly demonstrate the point being made.
• Explain: Clarify a concept, mechanism, or set of reasons. A flowchart can show a process or causal chain when useful.
• Describe: Explain a concept, policy, or phenomenon, often by outlining its features, provisions, or characteristics. The answer may be more factual when the question calls for factual description.
• Estimate: Provide an evidence-based estimate, using relevant data, facts, figures, examples, or assumptions where applicable.
• Define: Do not stop after a one-line definition if defining the term is a central demand. Follow it with relevant features, types, pillars, or a diagrammatic representation before moving to other parts of the question.
• To what extent / do you agree / do you think: Assess supporting and opposing arguments, use evidence where possible, and conclude with a clear view.
• Analyze / evaluate / examine / assess: Consider the topic from multiple sides. The instructor emphasizes balanced treatment and, where possible, explaining the reasons behind the points.

Examples Used in the Lesson

The instructor uses sample questions and answer scripts to demonstrate the approach:

• A question about blockchain and generative AI in agriculture is treated as unidirectional when it asks about their potential. With the directive discuss, the answer can focus mainly on their significance, with a smaller section on limitations or a way forward. If the wording also raises structural challenges, the answer should cover both sides.
• A question about the Institutions of Eminence scheme includes both its intended aims and its limited results. The answer should therefore address both, regardless of whether the directive is discuss or a similar directive.
• Questions about climate change, globalization, the Collegium system, volcanoes, food security, and other topics are used to show how to identify a question’s dimensions and allocate answer space.
• Court judgments are used as examples of evidence that can support a claim about the Constitution’s evolving interpretation.
• A flowchart is shown as a way to clarify a causal process, such as how relative deprivation may contribute to regionalism.

The instructor cautions against spending exam time inventing a diagram or flowchart unless a useful one is already clear.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Shubham Sir: The instructor and principal speaker.
• Unidentified students: Brief responses and confirmations; their names are unclear in the subtitles.
• Answer scripts attributed to aspirants or toppers: Examples discussed in class, including Animesh, Aditya Srivastava (surname unclear in the auto-generated subtitles), Maida/Mida Anand, and Ishita Kishore. They are cited as answer-writing examples, not heard speaking in the session.
• Arvinder: Mentioned as the presenter of a later session, but not heard speaking in this excerpt.