UPSC Insta–DART (Daily Aptitude and Reasoning Test) 28 Dec 2024

The delineation of the poverty threshold presents a notably deficient framework for comprehensively understanding poverty’s scope within India. This inadequacy stems not solely from its restrictively narrow delineation of poverty, or the contentious methodologies employed in enumerating the impoverished but is rooted more deeply in a foundational presupposition. The criterion singularly anchors on the concept of poverty as a lack of adequate income or purchasing power, aptly termed ‘income poverty’. However, conceiving poverty merely as income paucity oversimplifies the multifaceted nature of deprivations that compromise human well-being. In our perspective, the essence of poverty transcends the mere condition of existing in penury; it encompasses the absence of genuine opportunities constrained by societal limitations and individual circumstances, which preclude alternative modes of existence. Moreover, the significance attributed to limited earnings, scant possessions, and other traditionally economic indicators of poverty ultimately pertains to their role in diminishing capabilities, that is, their impact on drastically limiting the array of choices individuals have for leading diverse and fulfilling lives.

According to the passage, what makes the approach used in India for enumerating the impoverished is subjected to debate?

Is the culture hypothesis useful for understanding world inequality? Yes and no. Yes, in the sense that social norms, which are related to culture, matter and can be hard to change, and they also sometimes support institutional differences. But mostly no, because those aspects of culture often emphasized—religion, national ethics, African or Latin values—are just not important for understanding how we got here and why the inequalities in the world persist. Other aspects, such as how much people trust each other or cooperate, are important but are mostly an outcome of institutions, not an independent cause. There may be some marked differences in practices, norms, and values, though these are not causes but outcomes of the two places’ divergent development paths. For example, in surveys Mexicans typically say they trust other people less than the citizens of the United States say they trust others. But it is not a surprise that Mexicans lack trust when their government cannot eliminate drug cartels or provide a functioning unbiased legal system. The same is true with North and South Korea.

Which among the following can be described as the most logical inference of the above given passage?

In the realm of international politics, the structural imperatives dictated by the anarchic system of states necessitate that great powers perennially strive for hegemony. This relentless pursuit, grounded in the security dilemma, ensures that states are propelled by an inexorable logic towards maximizing their power relative to others. Mearsheimer posits that under such conditions, the distribution of power in the international system is the primary determinant of state behavior, overshadowing ideological affinities or domestic political considerations. The balance of power, therefore, is not a static condition but a dynamic process, where states engage in continuous adjustments of their strategies in response to the shifting contours of global power. This strategic adjustment is driven by the dual necessities of deterring potential rivals and ensuring one’s survival through either internal balancing, via the enhancement of one’s military capabilities, or external balancing, through the formation of alliances. However, the ultimate goal of achieving regional hegemony is tempered by the counterbalancing efforts of other states, leading to a perpetual state of competition and conflict, albeit not always overt. Mearsheimer’s analysis delineates a world where peace is a temporary and precarious condition, contingent upon the maintenance of a balance of power that can deter aggressive expansionism but cannot eradicate the underlying competition for dominance.

Which one of the following statements is the most logical corollary of the passage?

The State claims authority over individual, but when the State is viewed as an instrument of society, it is essential that authority of the State is made to depend on the function it performs. In other words, when the state is regarded as means and the individual as the end, the State cannot be armed with absolute authority over individual. If the State claims authority, the individual must claim rights. It is foolhardy to claim that individual cannot have rights against the State. It is important to note that the benefits that automatically flow from the existence of the State do not constitute rights. Rights comes into picture only when authority of State is sought to be limited.

Which of the following is true in light of the above passage?

1. Rights are not correlative to duties of individual
2. There is no rights, when authority of State is unlimited
3. Concept of rights provides a tool to analyse relation between individual and the State

Select correct answer using the code below:

On the basis of above passage following assumptions have been made:

1. Absence of rights makes the happiness of individual depend on the will of the powers-that-be
2. Rights belong to the sphere of conflicting claims between individual and the State

Which of these assumptions is/are valid?