I understand the broad topic of a question, but I’m less sure how much the command word should change the answer. For example, if a UPSC question asks me to “critically examine” a policy, is it enough to explain its benefits and limitations, or should I also assess the evidence behind each claim?
How do you keep a critically examine answer balanced without turning it into a list of points for and against? I’d especially like to hear how people distinguish that instruction from “discuss” under exam time pressure.