View answer copy →Anudeep DurishettyAIR 1CSE 2017
Answered a very similar question
Their question: “Anti-defection law sanctions party tyranny and curbs legislator's right to dissent — critically examine”
The topper argues the anti-defection law sanctions party tyranny and curbs dissent, exactly the diminished-MP-role critique the PYQ ties to the anti-defection law.
Key learnings from their answer
- ›He converts each ~200-word answer into a scannable mini-essay with boxed/underlined sub-headings he reuses across the paper, 'Checks', 'Features', 'Analysis', 'Evaluation', 'Challenges', 'Way Forward', 'Reforms needed'. -> Build a small fixed kit of labelled sub-heads and stamp them on every answer; the examiner can see your structure (issue -> analysis -> way forward) at a glance without reading line-by-line.
- ›Two-sided questions get two-column comparison tables, Economic vs Social democracy (Q3), Positive vs Negative impact of amendments (Q6), Civil society For vs Against democracy (Q14), India vs China approach to Africa (Q15), and the health answer adds a 'Poor Health -> Poor GDP' vicious-cycle diagram (Q8). -> When a question says 'critically examine' or pits two ideas, draw the comparison as a table or cycle so balance is visible structurally, then write the verdict beneath it.
