Let's cut to the chase and analyse UPSC Prelims 2020. My intent is to not only provide a comprehensive analysis, but also to provide a broad framework for approaching such an analysis by yourself in future.

Before we begin, let me lay down the ground rules and things I intend to cover so as to make this an aspirant charter of sorts. I'll try to cover the following while discussing the questions:

1. Most reasonable approach that could have brought us to the answer( But not an absurd one that does bring us to an answer but is pretty ad-hoc and could not be emulated) : Dw, I'll bring out the diff bw the two as and how we encounter a question which enables us to appreciate the difference.

2. Peripheral things that we need to read up on in order to be prepped for potential offshoot questions on that topic again.

3. Role of Serendipity factor(I also like to call it Slumdog millionaire factor for reasons that'll be clear soon).

4. My actual approach in the exam hall and what were my personal takeaways for improving the use of elimination tactics.

5. Use of certain factoids for Mains Value Addition.

A General Note on Elimination Heuristics:

1. Extent of using them would foremost depend on your risk appetite. My risk appetite tbh is limitless rn. I've come to attempt as many questions I possibly can, without of course taking a blind guess.

2. Good starting point (https://mrunal.org/gm) :These can be useful if you know how and when to apply them. Always keep an open mind and tinker with the possibility, atleast during mocks or while analysing the questions at home.

3.Elimination is not a science. Know that the theory of probability works only when the sample size of questions is large enough. In exam, you can have localised anomalies where all your 50-50s turn out to be incorrect consecutively.

Which brings me to my initial assessment of Prelims. It's a game of odds. There's no guarantee. But if you do your basic books really well, know your way around the elimination heuristics and have analysed PYQs since 2013 thoroughly, you have a high 'possibility' of clearing it. I think this has been a sufficing warmup. Let's jump on the Main course!

Offical QP and the answer key

This is an interesting question. Interesting because UPSC has deliberately framed statements that are usually incorrect. i.e. 'Negative statements'(use of 'cannot')and 'Statements about mandates'. UPSC decides to up the game.
In addition to that, a bunch of different heuristics could be applied in this question.
In #1, a data point is given and UPSC is known to tinker with data.
In #2, a slightly extreme statement is given 'cannot enter into any contract'.
In #3, the mandate would be against financial inclusion as Aadhar is not mandatory anyway, and govt is pushing for financial inclusion.
And in #4, CFI is under parliamentary control thus can have the requirement of more due diligence.

So in order to get this question correct, not only do you have to apply a 'nuanced' guesswork, but also have to be lucky in the sense that which elimination heuristic you prefer over the other. For instance, I got this question incorrect as I eliminated '2' given that it appeared extreme. I further chose 'c' over 'a' as likelihood of a single statement to be correct is more than the likelihood of two statements to be correct.

The way to get this correct could have been to eliminate '1' considering UPSC 'usually' tinkers with data. And then selecting 'b' over 'c' by eliminating '3' using the financial inclusion conjecture.

What did I Iearn from this ques tbh? If there are multiple heuristics applicable in a question with differing potential answers, and you have little to no knowledge on the topic, the question is better left un-attempted.

Direct question from Polity, but it is always a good practice to calmly go over all the options and keep haste in check.

a) RS has the prerogative of creating a new AIS, so RS>LS

c) No confidence motion can be initiated only in LS, so RS<LS

d) Budgetary powers vested in LS, so RS<LS

b) Amending powers equal for both, as even joint sitting not possible

Takeaway would be to stay calm in attempting straightforward questions like this. And do the chapter on legislature really well, as we always find questions from this chapter year in year out!

So this is one of those questions which epitomises the old age adage of "In an objective paper, a question by itself is not easy or difficult. It's the option setting which makes it either". This question could have been much more difficult if there was an option with 'All of the above'. Let's see how!

I know from the outset that there is atleast one incorrect statement. At first, I'm tempted to eliminate '4' as it contains a data point. But this is where 'qualified' elimination heuristic kicks in. I know from my reading on govt schemes that usually there's a component of audit(sometimes through district authorities, sometimes through social organisations). And the given data of 10% work inspection doesn't look entirely unreasonable either. So I decide to hold off making a decision on this statement rn and move on to others.

Statement 1 looks reasonable for two simple reasons. One, even in MGNREGA, there's a focus on creation of durable assets and schemes in govt are often symmetrical. Two, usually UPSC doesn't create statements out of the blue. They take up a statement directly from some document. Sometimes though, they might tinker with that statement to negate the context. This observation has in turn led to the heuristic that negative statements are more likely to be incorrect. Usually, any document on due diligence would mostly have things that could be done, and not the ones that could not be done. But remember, there are always exception to this observations, so contextual consideration of the statement becomes important.

In this particular case, it is more likely for the manual on MPLADS to say that "funds must be used to create durable assets" than to say that "funds must not be used to create durable assets", so I'll back that heuristic and consider '1' to be correct. That eliminates 'b'.

Statement '2' speaks about affirmative action of sorts, which again sounds reasonable from the same logic we discussed for statement '1'. Additionally, '2' goes hand in hand with '1' based on the available options.

Statement '3' looked less logical as either the fund could be 'non lapsable' altogether or it could be contemporaneous to the tenure of the MP which would be 5 years at least, if there were to be a limit on carry forward.

And since 'All of the above' was not an option, I selected 'd' which was fortunately the right answer.

A lot of people since the exam have been talking about how this was an expected question as there were discussions on freezing the scheme due to Covid. But imo a lot things were happening during Covid and staying on top of all those events is improbable. And even if you read on the scheme, memorising such minute details as given in statements '3' and '4' is difficult. So you would have to rely on common sense somewhere down the line.

Also note how I was awarded for resisting the temptation of eliminating '4' at once, because I don't blindly follow any 'heuristic'. The only way to refine your own understanding of applying these rules is to use them as much as possible during mocks, PYQ self analysis and then decide which ones you want to stick to inside the exam hall.

Another straightforward question from Constitution. This is Art 17. The only takeway from this is to have the first 51 articles of the constitution on your tips. It helps in more ways than one eg. You can use FR, DPSP, FD as way forwards in Mains.

Similar takeaway as the last question. This is Art 50 which is a part of DPSP.
Moreover, memorising Preamble also comes in handy, as you would be certain in that case of this provision not featuring in the Preamble.
Knowing about all the 12 schedules also has been helpful in the past to solve certain PYQs. 7th schedule is about Union, State and Concurrent list, acting as the edifice of federalism in India.
Option 'd' is generic and vague.
Usually it has been observed that in most of the topics(barring S&T), specific and exact options are more likely to be correct than vague and generic ones.

Budget forms a part of the study on legislature, so you can already see the benefit of focussing on that chapter.
Ideally you should know this as FRBM needs to be read in conjunction with Budget and this act mandates the discussion on the macro economic framework statement.

But options also hint towards the correct answer.
Option 'a' is vague and generic as discussed in the previous question.
If you've read that chapter on legislature well, you would recognise that Art 112 is about Annual Financial statement( formal name of Budget) and Art 110(1) is about Money bill.

The key takeaway is to read the chapter on Parliament and state legislature really well and also be able to differentiate bw 'vague & generic' statements from 'specific and exact' ones.