RRB JE CBT 2 🔴 OBJECTION QUESTIONS | KYA SAHI? KYA GALAT? | RISHABH SIR (AE) #rrbje #rishabhsir

Main ideas & lessons (what the speaker is trying to teach)

• RRB JE CBT-2 “objection questions” can change the final paper

  • The process is presented as a way to remove specific questions after verification.
  • If an objection is accepted, that question is removed for everyone, not just for the person who objected.
  • Therefore, raising valid objections benefits all candidates, while incorrect objections are not expected to help.

• How RRB CBT-2 scoring was impacted previously (example from last exam)

  • The speaker gives a past-scorecard example to explain what happens when objections are accepted:
    • Total questions: 150
    • Questions ignored/cancelled: 12 (because RRB accepted objections and removed those questions)
    • Valid questions used for scoring: 138
    • In the example candidate: correct answers 106, incorrect 18, raw marks 100
    • Pro-rated score: 108
    • Merit index shown: 778, leading to document verification and selection.

• Strategic categories of questions that may be objectionable

  • The speaker repeatedly claims certain questions are “objection-worthy” when:
    • Correct option is missing or the given options don’t match the correct answer.
    • The question is “out of syllabus” (as per the official RRB JE syllabus).
    • The content/logic is wrong (e.g., incorrect statements).
  • He argues that students who answer differently (or follow different understanding) may raise objections too—especially if they believe something is outside syllabus.

---

Objection-related topics & specific examples discussed (technical)

A) Illumination: “Reduction factor in illumination”

• Speaker claim: objections are expected because:
  • “Reduction factor in illumination” has a definition, and options do not match it.
• Formula mentioned:
  • Reduction factor = (Mean spherical candle power) / (Mean horizontal candle power)

B) PN junction diode breakdown (Avalanche vs Zener/Elnansh claims)

• Speaker claim: objection #2 may be raised because one option mixes/incorrectly distinguishes breakdown mechanisms.
• Logic framework described (as he says it should be interpreted):
  • Avalanche breakdown: predominant in lightly doped junctions.
  • Zener breakdown: occurs under different conditions (he gives threshold/range idea) and is associated with different behavior characteristics.
  • Curve/characteristic behavior: he emphasizes that the reverse current change should be gradual/curve-based rather than a “sharp” jump (in the way Zener breakdown behavior is described by him).
• Conclusion: he believes the correct options should withstand objection if the statements are understood correctly.

C) Buck-Boost converter question

• Speaker claim: objection possible because it may be treated as out of syllabus.
• Reasoning approach:
  • If power electronics/topic is not listed in official RRB JE syllabus, students can object.
• But he also says: even if the answer is correct, the objection can be raised based on syllabus mismatch.

D) Signal & Systems out-of-syllabus argument

• Speaker claim: any “Signal and System” type question can be objected to if not covered by the syllabus.
• He presents this as a recurring justification method.

E) Ferrite / electrical materials / crystal structure question

• Speaker claim: a question about electrical materials and crystal structure is considered out of syllabus (he says it’s not asked within the RRB JE electrical materials coverage).
• He mentions possible objection routes but also says the exact chosen answer may be correct.

---

Non-technical topic discussed (motor duty)

Effect of short-time duty on the size and cost of electric motors

• Question type: MCQ: “Which point is correct regarding the effect of short-time duty on size and cost of electric motors?”
• He argues correct option set (1–4) with explanation:
  1. Use of higher rated motors for short durations
     • Rationale given: short-duty motors can deliver high power briefly; thermal limits are not exceeded.
  2. Motors used for short-time duties are generally smaller for the same load
     • Rationale given: lower operating time → lower heating → less need for large size/heatsinking.
  3. Short-time duty increases the need for oversized enclosures
     • He says this statement is wrong.
  4. Cost is lower for motors used in short-time duty
     • Rationale given: less temperature rise → less costly design than continuous-duty motor.

Industrial load types and motor selection logic (methodology)

• He teaches a classification:
  • Continuous load
  • Intermittent load
  • Variable load
• Factors determining motor size (2 factors):
  • Temperature rise / thermal limits
  • Maximum torque requirement
• Motor selection principles described:
  • Continuous load: design so motor rating matches constant power demand; avoid under-rating (overheating) or over-rating (low efficiency).
  • Intermittent load:
    • Motor is switched on/off.
    • If shut-off is long enough to cool fully, use a motor sized for thermal limit.
    • If shut-off is short and the motor can’t cool to room temperature, you must choose carefully so temperature limit is not exceeded.
  • Variable load: use a heating/cooling curve based on load fluctuations and choose the smallest motor that stays within temperature limits.

---

Another technical magnetic-material question (paramagnetic vs diamagnetic)

• Question theme: “Which magnetic material loses its magnetism immediately after removal of magnetic field?”
• Speaker’s stance:
  • He claims the expected answer is paramagnetic (in his explanation).
• He contrasts:
  • Paramagnetic: can become weakly magnetized when field is applied; when removed, dipoles return to random orientation → loses magnetism.
  • Diamagnetic: opposition behavior when field is applied; the mechanism differs.
• Conclusion he repeats: he believes RRB’s provided answer is correct (no successful objection expected).

---

Examples from “wind power plant” and other engineering MCQs

• Wind turbine generator type + converter type:
  • He discusses a “Type C wind turbine” concept:
    • Uses doubly-fed induction generator.
    • Includes partial-scale power converter (he cites “±30% of rated power”).
• Squirrel cage induction generator speed:
  • He claims it operates at constant speed (as taught in notes).
• Single phasing preventioner question:
  • He claims it protects three-phase induction motor (single phasing detection/monitoring).
• Seam welding electrode material:
  • He states electrodes are made of copper alloys (and refers to “roller/wheeler electrodes”).
• Synchronous motor torque statements:
  • He discusses which statements are correct and which are objectionable, including:
    • starting torque behavior,
    • torque dependence on load angle,
    • pull-in torque vs continuous synchronism torque,
    • and language/wording issues that can be targeted for objections.

---

Mentioned “methods” / workflow the speaker emphasizes

• When considering objections, follow this logic:

  • Step 1: Identify the question
    • Note the exact question topic and any missing/incorrect options.
  • Step 2: Check syllabus alignment
    • If the topic is not in the official RRB JE syllabus, objection can be raised on out-of-syllabus grounds (even if the answer seems correct).
  • Step 3: Check correctness vs definition/formula
    • If the correct definition/formula is known but no option matches, objection can be raised.
  • Step 4: Check whether statements/options are scientifically consistent
    • If options contradict established theory (e.g., breakdown mechanism statements, torque relations, etc.), objection can be raised.
  • Step 5: Understand the impact
    • If RRB accepts objections for a question, the question is removed for everyone and scoring is recalculated on remaining valid questions.

• Strategy implication explained:

  • If you get a high score and think you made no errors, you can still object to try to ensure the paper becomes more favorable (or at least not worse), but the speaker stresses that only accepted objections matter.

---

Speaker/source list (who appears or is referenced)

Main speaker

• Rishabh Sir (AE) (the video title names him; throughout the subtitles he is addressed as “Sir” and speaks as the host/teacher)

Other people referenced (not necessarily present as speakers)

• Rajdeep Sharma (mentioned as agreeing/teaching briefly)
• Devraj Kumar (mentioned in oscilloscope/rise-time context)
• Ayush Ranjan (interviewee mentioned; not a live co-speaker in the subtitles)
• Sumit (another interview mentioned)
• Navneet Bhai (mentioned by name, reacting/supporting the objection discussion)
• Priyanka Chopra (referenced only as a name/example joke; not a participant)

Organizations/exams referenced as sources (not speakers)

• RRB (Railway Recruitment Board) and RRB JE CBT-2
• RRB JE official syllabus (as the authority for “out-of-syllabus” claims)
• Mentions of ChatGPT, Google (as general informational references, not presented as video co-speakers)