How toppers approached this question
Examine the scope and significance of the Supreme Court's advisory jurisdiction under Article 143 of the Constitution.
How toppers built answers of this type: the structure spine and the moves they converged on. Aggregated across real past-paper answers for this paper and directive, not this one question, so no question-specific evidence is shown. No answer text is reproduced.
The topper method
Examine
The spine toppers built
Open
- Define the key term first
- Context-hook opening
Build
- Numbered enumeration
- Problems then remedies
- Directive-mirroring headers
Close
- Verdict conclusion
- Forward-looking close
Moves they converged on
- Example as evidence69% of answers
Tag a concrete example explicitly as evidence.
- Numbered enumeration66% of answers
Enumerate points as a numbered list.
- Problems then remedies56% of answers
Pair each problem with a remedy.
- Verdict conclusion55% of answers
End with a clear verdict.
- Directive-mirroring headers49% of answers
Headers that mirror the question's directive.
Evidence toppers carried (per answer)
Judgments ~2Concepts ~1Other anchors ~1Examples ~1Institutions ~1Data points ~1Thinkers ~1Current events ~1
GS2 · Examine: derived from 117 real past-paper answers: counts, not copied prose
Write your own answer to this question
Mark my answer freeMethod is derived from real past-paper answers as anonymized aggregate signal. Construction moves and counts, never copied answer text.