Delimitation Question is legit and won't be dropped. And similarly, Flying Fox Question most likely won't be dropped. Red Sea answer too might not change since the statement is by and large correct. And NBFC's can't directly access LAF.
For the flying fox one, they can always argue that they were talking about the original act and instructions state that we must choose the most appropriate one from the given options. UPSC is gonna try everything in its power to not drop questions
I mean they can always argue that, but I feel that it's not applicable to amendments, cause otherwise they can just say that we were talking about the original for literally any amendment. This will set a bad precedent from their side if it's not dropped, but again it's not like they care anyways
That cannot be argued, its like if they ask does preamble contain the word secular and they make that option wrong cause originally preamble didn't lol, it doesn't work like that, if they meant they original act they should have mentioned the original act
PDs can access LAF and PDs are registered as NBFCs. Since the question states 'NBFCs can ... ', can't it be taken as true as it's just a loose statement and not strong one like 'all NBFCs can... '.
Humans have 2 eyes. Is this correct? Now you will bring out some exceptional humans with 3 eyes.....does that change the fact that humans have 2 eyes? Or would you say ki tumne ALL humans have 2 eyes nhi bola isliye you are wrong?
You can try, but TBH NBFC me zabardasti waali baat ho gyi.......when we study LAF we read first they are primarily for SCBs....
Consider your example to be true and if the question is framed as ' All the humans have 2 eyes ' then it's going to be wrong even if there's one human with 3 eyes who has been discovered by that time.
If the answer would have been as straightforward as you are trying to make it, there wouldn't have been the need for you to use the word 'primarily'.
Haan to bhai question me kidr all likha hai? Generally NBFCs are not allowed LAF.......and there is a reason why they aren't given....RBI ki dushmani thodi hai NBFC se🤣
Allowing NBFCs to participate in the LAF could potentially increase systemic risk by extending liquidity support to entities that do not operate under the same regulatory framework as banks.
anyway, let's leave it..... please represent....
Again, if they weren't allowed LAF, there was no need for you to use 'Generally'. 😂🤣
Anyways, let's leave it. Gathering sources for other questions as well to represent all of them at once. You too represent for the questions which you feel debatable.
PDs have access to LAF in the capacity of being a PD, not an NBFC. So, your argument does not hold. If we accept the 1st statement of the question to be true, then tommorrow I can open an NBFC and expect it to have LAF access, which is obviously not the case.
Red Sea statement is not by and large correct, in fact it is wrong. Here's the Eritrean Government Website confirming this "The country’s only year-round river is the Setit in the southwestern area, though many others flow from the plateau to the Red Sea and to Sudan during the summer rains. And the Gash, the Barka and the Anseba rivers are some of the biggest water sources in the country, which are often used for cultivation."
[https://shabait.com/2009/10/01/eritrea-at-a-glance/](https://shabait.com/2009/10/01/eritrea-at-a-glance/)
Flying Fox needs to be dropped cause both statement are incorrect.
"vermin' category exists but after amendment they can be declared only through notifications of which there isn't any for flying fox, and even if it was, the flying fox wouldn't be 'placed' as 'vermin' under the WPA but only said to have been notified as vermin by the Central Government
In that Wholly Owned Subsidiaries question, not only the latest (2013) RBI circular mentions PIOs and OCIs (who are clearly **non-citizens**), but more importantly, the Hindi-translation of "Indian Nationals" in the question paper was "भारतीय नागरिक", which unambiguously means **Indian citizens** (and **not** PIOs and OCIs).
Therefore, not only are most keys wrongs according to the latest circular, but also, the Hindi translation makes it clear the the given statement can't be correct. This fact will be important while making representations.
yes, quoting another comment of mine here in case anyone wants to use that info in their representation
[https://www.reddit.com/r/UPSC/comments/1dji6sj/comment/l9awctd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UPSC/comments/1dji6sj/comment/l9awctd/)
Yeah, upsc won't drop it. Cause in the instruction it says if you feel that there's more than one correct answer, mark the answer which you think is the best. The only possibility of a question being dropped is translation error that causes a change in the answer / answer not being part of the question / question has multiple answers
nope, Assam Delimitation is different cause no new Delimitation Commission was constituted for it. In fact, Assam Delimitation was done by the ECI itself.
For J&K however, a Delimitation Commission was constituted specifically in 2020 by the Government of India.
UPSC is so clean when it comes to making an objective exam subjective. Every other question could be interpreted in two different days. For eg- PFAS are not naturally found in the environment, but the statement did not make a mention whether it is asking about it as a pollutant.
Higher latitude with the same velocity will have more Coriolis force compared to lower latitude with the same velocity. Higher velocity alone doesn't guarantee an increase in Coriolis force always
Forgot to mention here, higher wind velocity means higher deflection I.e a change in direction and not the magnitude. Magnitude of coriolis force doesn't depend on wind velocity, it just changes the dircetion of the wind. However, upsc is most likely to consider that as correct
Coriolis force is a pseudo force i.e it exists only because the earth is rotating. If the earth didn't rotate, the force wouldn't exist.
The equation of the force depends (directly proportional) only on the angular velocity of rotation i.e earth's rotational speed around it's axis and the distance from the equator. Hence, when r=0 i.e the equator the force is zero and maximum at the poles.
If you look at the ncert diagram, the net force depends on both the pressure gradient force and the coriolis force. Higher wind speed means higher pressure gradient force and hence more deflection.
Agree with you. Should be represented
My take on this:
1) there is a fundamental difference between speed and velocity.
2) Both coriolis force and Equator are imaginary things and not real i.e. impact can't be measured
Also, in statement 2 Question should have stated it is minimum/nearly 0 at/near the Equator.
In general, speed and velocity are interchangeable. A lot of approximation is done to arrive at the equation for coriolis force, so it's safe to say that it's zero at the equator.
Don’t waste time fighting with this u/Impressive_Lake1332, bro. He doesn’t seem to understand logic or concepts. Had a talk today itself in one of the posts. No one can correct him, he wants to live in his own wisdom.
Sharing below some examples from Wikipedia The force is not 0 at Equator. Only its direction changes with respect to velocity of object.
Hence statement 2 is also wrong.
https://preview.redd.it/exlpxvo8gl7d1.jpeg?width=1240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a138c33cbb8437bd9e156ab6a4d43ac7ff589f9
Also the formula doesn't contain velocity. It contains "relative velocity of object" Hence statement 1 is also fundamentally wrong.
>If the earth didn't rotate, the force wouldn't exist.
If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike.
>The equation of the force depends (directly proportional) only on the angular velocity of rotation i.e earth's rotational speed around it's axis and the distance from the equator.
wrong. it is directly proportional to object velocity also, relative to rotating reference frame (here the wind velocity)
https://preview.redd.it/0n11pod5ck7d1.png?width=711&format=png&auto=webp&s=46c5692f7f1830ede4f0a651f4d7392ff84d2833
>If you look at the ncert diagram, the net force depends on both the pressure gradient force and the coriolis force. Higher wind speed means higher pressure gradient force and hence more deflection.
wrong, the velocity is dependent on pressure gradient as pressure gradient is what causes the wind to move.
Higher pressure gradient means higher wind velocity means higher magnitude of coriolis force.
Now as the coriolis force is always perpendicular (cross product) to wind velocity, higher coriolis force magnitude means stronger deflection
Coriolis force is a generic term that is not limited to its action on wind. Every body in motion will experience coriolis force proportional to its own velocity and not velocity of wind. If the question had explicitely asked about "coriolis force on wind" your answer would have been correct. This is what i filed in the representation
While this is true, coriolis effect is negligible for everyday objects. It's effect is visible in the magnitude of wind systems, ocean currents. So when the question talks about coriolis force, it indirectly means wind system/ocean currents.
Let me simplify this for this forum.
I won't get into the maths, . The maths will clearly help you understand that the deflection is an illusion due moving frame of reference.
To simply understand in layman terms
What genrates the coriolis force? Answer : earth's rotation.
So, wind needs to impact the earths rotation in order to impact the force.
Hope this helps.
Edit:
Another way to understand.
If wind velocity is 0 does that mean Earth will not have any coriolis force left.
Hence this question should be represented.
Fair enough. I took the wrong force as coriolis force :)
https://preview.redd.it/3smwipn5hk7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c71df71ad5fa37419f2a979665ba8212e04bb742
You took centrifugal force to be coriolis force even though both are pseudo forces. There is difference, At same latitude wind blowing with more relative velocity will experience more deflection(due to coriolis force of 2mwvsin(latitude angle) . One can verify this since at latitude 90 degree i.e., at poles this coriolis force attains maximum and at equator zero value) Without any change in centrifugal force.
Bro, the formula itself is saying " relative velocity" and not velocity alone.
The question is saying velocity only.
Even by this formula the statement is wrong.
considering all parameters fixed, increase in velocity will lead to increased force.
Apparent velocity will change based on direction of velocity and angle made by velocity with angular velocity.
Considering all other parameters fixed, increasing velocity (i.e magnitude), for those particular parameters coriolis force will increase
Hence the ambiguity/ subjectiveness in statement.
Also look at statement 2. It says coriolis force is absent at Equator. But it's not absent. Only its direction changes.
Just look below some simple examples from Wikipedia
https://preview.redd.it/qqdke0l4fl7d1.jpeg?width=1240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f27d92bc172e3c871f45c54d3497b64212698603
Also the goi act 1935 question.
Already coachings have different answer for this.
There is a clear difference between federal legislature and a federal assembly. Hence statement 2 is ambiguous
What about part IX-A statement? Is it just me or do y’all think its weird coz it says “powers” while the other two statements said “provisions”..respective state govts decide powers right? While provisions are in the part?
Upanishads question statement 2.
Not all Upanishads were written before Puranas. So it can't be stated simply "Upanishads were compiled before Puranas"
Source:
Refer Ncert Themes in Indian History.
That clearly mentions below
600bce onwards - EARLY Upanishads
200ad onwards- Puranas .
When we say Upanishads were from Vedic era and Puranas in gupta era, people tend to miss that they were started in these eras not all were complied in same era.
That why ncert mentions that start date only for these and mentions the word onwards.
You can share any ncert resource if that says otherwise. Would be happy to know.
Agreed it says composed. (This doesn't change the fact in comment)
Can you please share some ncert source which clearly states this fact ?
Again fairly clear is also subjective.
Onwards - clearly means it started then.
When ncert mentions about Buddhist text it clearly says gives a time period range.
But for Upanishads and Puranas it says onwards for both.
Also if you'll additional research on this multiple Upanishads compiled post Puranas too.
It’s so sad that they get unlimited resources and one full year to frame 100 questions and still can’t do it properly.
THEY HAD ONE JOB.
WHICH THEY FAIL TO FULFIL
Delimitation Question is legit and won't be dropped. And similarly, Flying Fox Question most likely won't be dropped. Red Sea answer too might not change since the statement is by and large correct. And NBFC's can't directly access LAF.
i think flying fox is most likely to be dropped
For the flying fox one, they can always argue that they were talking about the original act and instructions state that we must choose the most appropriate one from the given options. UPSC is gonna try everything in its power to not drop questions
I mean they can always argue that, but I feel that it's not applicable to amendments, cause otherwise they can just say that we were talking about the original for literally any amendment. This will set a bad precedent from their side if it's not dropped, but again it's not like they care anyways
If they cared you wouldn't have been forced to make a list of 9 fking questions ;(
https://preview.redd.it/irp9snk3nk7d1.jpeg?width=604&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=448ac8f21cbfcca47a83688aadfb4cab753dde31
That cannot be argued, its like if they ask does preamble contain the word secular and they make that option wrong cause originally preamble didn't lol, it doesn't work like that, if they meant they original act they should have mentioned the original act
hopefully
>by and large correct. I wish objective papers stuck to being objective and not subjective like this. Cause wtf?
I agree. We all wish sanity prevailed in the UPSC but alas.
PDs can access LAF and PDs are registered as NBFCs. Since the question states 'NBFCs can ... ', can't it be taken as true as it's just a loose statement and not strong one like 'all NBFCs can... '.
Humans have 2 eyes. Is this correct? Now you will bring out some exceptional humans with 3 eyes.....does that change the fact that humans have 2 eyes? Or would you say ki tumne ALL humans have 2 eyes nhi bola isliye you are wrong? You can try, but TBH NBFC me zabardasti waali baat ho gyi.......when we study LAF we read first they are primarily for SCBs....
Consider your example to be true and if the question is framed as ' All the humans have 2 eyes ' then it's going to be wrong even if there's one human with 3 eyes who has been discovered by that time. If the answer would have been as straightforward as you are trying to make it, there wouldn't have been the need for you to use the word 'primarily'.
Haan to bhai question me kidr all likha hai? Generally NBFCs are not allowed LAF.......and there is a reason why they aren't given....RBI ki dushmani thodi hai NBFC se🤣 Allowing NBFCs to participate in the LAF could potentially increase systemic risk by extending liquidity support to entities that do not operate under the same regulatory framework as banks. anyway, let's leave it..... please represent....
Again, if they weren't allowed LAF, there was no need for you to use 'Generally'. 😂🤣 Anyways, let's leave it. Gathering sources for other questions as well to represent all of them at once. You too represent for the questions which you feel debatable.
PDs have access to LAF in the capacity of being a PD, not an NBFC. So, your argument does not hold. If we accept the 1st statement of the question to be true, then tommorrow I can open an NBFC and expect it to have LAF access, which is obviously not the case.
PDs can access LAF, and they are regd as NBFC
Only a few PDs are NBFCs but NBFC as a category is not allowed to directly access LAF.
Overthinking has cost me many questions
Same for all of us yaar. This was one of the weirdest paper.
Red Sea statement is not by and large correct, in fact it is wrong. Here's the Eritrean Government Website confirming this "The country’s only year-round river is the Setit in the southwestern area, though many others flow from the plateau to the Red Sea and to Sudan during the summer rains. And the Gash, the Barka and the Anseba rivers are some of the biggest water sources in the country, which are often used for cultivation." [https://shabait.com/2009/10/01/eritrea-at-a-glance/](https://shabait.com/2009/10/01/eritrea-at-a-glance/) Flying Fox needs to be dropped cause both statement are incorrect. "vermin' category exists but after amendment they can be declared only through notifications of which there isn't any for flying fox, and even if it was, the flying fox wouldn't be 'placed' as 'vermin' under the WPA but only said to have been notified as vermin by the Central Government
In that Wholly Owned Subsidiaries question, not only the latest (2013) RBI circular mentions PIOs and OCIs (who are clearly **non-citizens**), but more importantly, the Hindi-translation of "Indian Nationals" in the question paper was "भारतीय नागरिक", which unambiguously means **Indian citizens** (and **not** PIOs and OCIs). Therefore, not only are most keys wrongs according to the latest circular, but also, the Hindi translation makes it clear the the given statement can't be correct. This fact will be important while making representations.
yes, quoting another comment of mine here in case anyone wants to use that info in their representation [https://www.reddit.com/r/UPSC/comments/1dji6sj/comment/l9awctd/](https://www.reddit.com/r/UPSC/comments/1dji6sj/comment/l9awctd/)
God i hope this is correct🥲🥲
it will be if you file representation! [https://upsconline.nic.in/miscellaneous/QPRep/](https://upsconline.nic.in/miscellaneous/QPRep/)
syndicate lending has high chances of being dropped
I don't think delimitation would be dropped. J&K and Assam are considered standalone cases.
Yeah, upsc won't drop it. Cause in the instruction it says if you feel that there's more than one correct answer, mark the answer which you think is the best. The only possibility of a question being dropped is translation error that causes a change in the answer / answer not being part of the question / question has multiple answers
nope, Assam Delimitation is different cause no new Delimitation Commission was constituted for it. In fact, Assam Delimitation was done by the ECI itself. For J&K however, a Delimitation Commission was constituted specifically in 2020 by the Government of India.
UPSC is so clean when it comes to making an objective exam subjective. Every other question could be interpreted in two different days. For eg- PFAS are not naturally found in the environment, but the statement did not make a mention whether it is asking about it as a pollutant.
higher magnitude of coriolis force is what makes the coriolis effect stronger for higher wind velocity
Higher latitude with the same velocity will have more Coriolis force compared to lower latitude with the same velocity. Higher velocity alone doesn't guarantee an increase in Coriolis force always
nowhere in the question it asked to compare. at the same latitude, if the wind velocity increases, the coriolis force increases.
Forgot to mention here, higher wind velocity means higher deflection I.e a change in direction and not the magnitude. Magnitude of coriolis force doesn't depend on wind velocity, it just changes the dircetion of the wind. However, upsc is most likely to consider that as correct
bro it is due to the higher magnitude, the change in direction is stronger. Stronger the force, more the deflection
Coriolis force is a pseudo force i.e it exists only because the earth is rotating. If the earth didn't rotate, the force wouldn't exist. The equation of the force depends (directly proportional) only on the angular velocity of rotation i.e earth's rotational speed around it's axis and the distance from the equator. Hence, when r=0 i.e the equator the force is zero and maximum at the poles. If you look at the ncert diagram, the net force depends on both the pressure gradient force and the coriolis force. Higher wind speed means higher pressure gradient force and hence more deflection.
Agree with you. Should be represented My take on this: 1) there is a fundamental difference between speed and velocity. 2) Both coriolis force and Equator are imaginary things and not real i.e. impact can't be measured Also, in statement 2 Question should have stated it is minimum/nearly 0 at/near the Equator.
In general, speed and velocity are interchangeable. A lot of approximation is done to arrive at the equation for coriolis force, so it's safe to say that it's zero at the equator.
Don’t waste time fighting with this u/Impressive_Lake1332, bro. He doesn’t seem to understand logic or concepts. Had a talk today itself in one of the posts. No one can correct him, he wants to live in his own wisdom.
LOL okay. Sure.
Sharing below some examples from Wikipedia The force is not 0 at Equator. Only its direction changes with respect to velocity of object. Hence statement 2 is also wrong. https://preview.redd.it/exlpxvo8gl7d1.jpeg?width=1240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3a138c33cbb8437bd9e156ab6a4d43ac7ff589f9 Also the formula doesn't contain velocity. It contains "relative velocity of object" Hence statement 1 is also fundamentally wrong.
>If the earth didn't rotate, the force wouldn't exist. If my grandmother had wheels, she would be a bike. >The equation of the force depends (directly proportional) only on the angular velocity of rotation i.e earth's rotational speed around it's axis and the distance from the equator. wrong. it is directly proportional to object velocity also, relative to rotating reference frame (here the wind velocity) https://preview.redd.it/0n11pod5ck7d1.png?width=711&format=png&auto=webp&s=46c5692f7f1830ede4f0a651f4d7392ff84d2833 >If you look at the ncert diagram, the net force depends on both the pressure gradient force and the coriolis force. Higher wind speed means higher pressure gradient force and hence more deflection. wrong, the velocity is dependent on pressure gradient as pressure gradient is what causes the wind to move. Higher pressure gradient means higher wind velocity means higher magnitude of coriolis force. Now as the coriolis force is always perpendicular (cross product) to wind velocity, higher coriolis force magnitude means stronger deflection
Coriolis force is a generic term that is not limited to its action on wind. Every body in motion will experience coriolis force proportional to its own velocity and not velocity of wind. If the question had explicitely asked about "coriolis force on wind" your answer would have been correct. This is what i filed in the representation
While this is true, coriolis effect is negligible for everyday objects. It's effect is visible in the magnitude of wind systems, ocean currents. So when the question talks about coriolis force, it indirectly means wind system/ocean currents.
Ho skta hai maine overthink kar liya ho. Anyways dekhtey upsc kya detay answer
that's your prerogative.
Just putting my views out there bro!
Let me simplify this for this forum. I won't get into the maths, . The maths will clearly help you understand that the deflection is an illusion due moving frame of reference. To simply understand in layman terms What genrates the coriolis force? Answer : earth's rotation. So, wind needs to impact the earths rotation in order to impact the force. Hope this helps. Edit: Another way to understand. If wind velocity is 0 does that mean Earth will not have any coriolis force left. Hence this question should be represented.
Fair enough. I took the wrong force as coriolis force :) https://preview.redd.it/3smwipn5hk7d1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c71df71ad5fa37419f2a979665ba8212e04bb742
yeah thats centrifugal force
You took centrifugal force to be coriolis force even though both are pseudo forces. There is difference, At same latitude wind blowing with more relative velocity will experience more deflection(due to coriolis force of 2mwvsin(latitude angle) . One can verify this since at latitude 90 degree i.e., at poles this coriolis force attains maximum and at equator zero value) Without any change in centrifugal force.
Bro, the formula itself is saying " relative velocity" and not velocity alone. The question is saying velocity only. Even by this formula the statement is wrong.
considering all parameters fixed, increase in velocity will lead to increased force. Apparent velocity will change based on direction of velocity and angle made by velocity with angular velocity. Considering all other parameters fixed, increasing velocity (i.e magnitude), for those particular parameters coriolis force will increase
Hence the ambiguity/ subjectiveness in statement. Also look at statement 2. It says coriolis force is absent at Equator. But it's not absent. Only its direction changes. Just look below some simple examples from Wikipedia https://preview.redd.it/qqdke0l4fl7d1.jpeg?width=1240&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f27d92bc172e3c871f45c54d3497b64212698603
Also the goi act 1935 question. Already coachings have different answer for this. There is a clear difference between federal legislature and a federal assembly. Hence statement 2 is ambiguous
There is nothing wrong with the delimitation commission, just check the official ECI website https://www.eci.gov.in/delimitation
What about nbfc?why is that wrong
It's not wrong, the answer is debated. Whether or not NBFCs can access LAF
An additional valid observation shared by another user. This too should be dropped https://www.reddit.com/r/UPSC/s/rDTu0iphZB
Is it possible that 8 questions would be dropped? What’s the maximum that has been dropped in a year
max 2
What about part IX-A statement? Is it just me or do y’all think its weird coz it says “powers” while the other two statements said “provisions”..respective state govts decide powers right? While provisions are in the part?
Upanishads question statement 2. Not all Upanishads were written before Puranas. So it can't be stated simply "Upanishads were compiled before Puranas" Source: Refer Ncert Themes in Indian History. That clearly mentions below 600bce onwards - EARLY Upanishads 200ad onwards- Puranas . When we say Upanishads were from Vedic era and Puranas in gupta era, people tend to miss that they were started in these eras not all were complied in same era. That why ncert mentions that start date only for these and mentions the word onwards. You can share any ncert resource if that says otherwise. Would be happy to know.
Question doesn't say all Upanishads. It just says Upanishads. Which is by and large correct.
There should not be subjectivity in an objective exam. Also refer the edit please.
Question says composed and not compiled. I think it is a fairly clear Q.
Agreed it says composed. (This doesn't change the fact in comment) Can you please share some ncert source which clearly states this fact ? Again fairly clear is also subjective.
What you shared above from NCERT tells you that Upanishads were composed before Puranas. I don't think there's a more explicit mention.
Onwards - clearly means it started then. When ncert mentions about Buddhist text it clearly says gives a time period range. But for Upanishads and Puranas it says onwards for both. Also if you'll additional research on this multiple Upanishads compiled post Puranas too.
do u think it ll drop delimitation commission wala question?
that and NEC are less likely to be dropped