Compare Indian and global traditions through their actual reasons, limits and implications for original public-service cases.
UPSC Civil Services45 min study guide14 indexed sections
BY THE END, YOU CAN
Explain differentiated Indian traditions and modern ethical thought.
Distinguish virtue, duty, consequences, justice and care.
Apply theories without invented historical claims or automatic verdicts.
Use context, authority, alternatives and review in comparative reasoning.
BEFORE YOU START
No optional-subject background is required.
Distinguish a fictional case stipulation from current law or an official answer.
Original educational lesson. Work through the examples before revealing the practice answers. This original common-core lesson supports its declared paper scope. Optional subjects, qualifying language papers and the interview are outside this resource.
LEARN THROUGH ORIGINAL PRACTICE
Original UPSC-style worked applications and practice
All teaching examples, cases, prompts and model answers are original. Official exam questions and answer keys are not reproduced. This common-core lesson does not imply complete historical paper coverage or an official score.
01 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
How to compare ethical traditions
Ethical traditions can ask different questions: what makes an outcome good, which actions are right, what character is admirable and how a principle is justified. Compare answers to the same question before declaring two traditions opposed. A duty-based approach and a concern for welfare may both reject a false assurance, but for different reasons. Conversely, they may disagree about which considerations have priority. An examination answer should show the reason doing the work, not merely attach a philosopher’s name to a preferred conclusion.
Traditions contain debates and historical changes. “Indian thought” and “Western thought” are not two internally uniform positions, and a brief common-core lesson cannot replace specialist study. Distinguish what a thinker argued, how a later interpreter understands it and the contemporary application being proposed here. The fictional cases do not report what a philosopher personally decided. They test how particular concepts illuminate supplied facts. A sound comparison recognises convergence, disagreement and the limits of translating ideas across different social and institutional settings.
02 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Dharma and disciplined action
Dharma is used in diverse Indian traditions for ideas connected with order, duty and right conduct. Its meaning depends on the text and context; it should not be reduced to one timeless instruction for every public role. Role responsibilities can reveal obligations that a purely private preference misses, but inherited claims about roles also require scrutiny. In a modern administrative case, identify the actual authority and equal-standing concerns rather than assume that a traditional label settles the matter. Description of a tradition is not endorsement of every hierarchy associated with it.
The Bhagavad Gita’s discussion of disciplined action and non-attachment to personal reward offers one particular context, not a definition of all dharma. An ethical application can distinguish attending faithfully to a responsibility from acting only for applause or advantage. Non-attachment should not be confused with refusing to examine foreseeable harm. A clerk cannot say that the consequences of an inaccurate record are irrelevant because the task was performed without desire for reward. Role, means and effects still need careful interpretation; blind obedience is not established by invoking duty in the abstract.
03 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Buddhist intention and compassion
Buddhist ethical thought gives important roles to moral discipline, intention and the reduction of suffering. Greed, hatred and delusion describe harmful orientations, while compassion directs attention beyond narrow self-concern. These ideas connect conduct and the cultivation of dispositions rather than treat a single outward action as the whole moral story. The tradition is diverse, and different forms and commitments should not be collapsed into one rule. This introduction concerns ethical concepts, not a claim about the beliefs or conduct of every Buddhist person.
Consider an original workplace example: a supervisor responds to a correctable mistake with angry humiliation. Attention to intention and reactive states asks what is driving the response and whether it increases avoidable suffering. Compassion does not require leaving the mistake uncorrected. A firm, fair explanation can protect service users while avoiding needless cruelty. Nor does concern for suffering amount simply to maximising a numerical office-performance total. The quality of motivation, discipline and response remains relevant. Good intentions may limit blame, but they do not remove the need for competent repair.
04 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Jain non-harm and many-sidedness
Jain ethics places demanding importance on ahimsa, or non-harm, alongside restraint and non-possessiveness. Attention to living beings challenges the assumption that convenience justifies any injury. The demands associated with ascetic and lay lives are not identical, so a brief account should not impose one uniform practice on all adherents. For ethical analysis, the useful question is concrete: which harms are being ignored, how avoidable are they, and what feasible less injurious conduct can be considered?
Anekantavada concerns the many-sided character of reality and the limits of a partial standpoint. It supports careful qualification rather than the claim that every proposition is equally true. In a public dispute, hearing a worker, an engineer and an affected resident can reveal different aspects of a problem. Their claims still need evidence and may conflict. Many-sidedness is not a reason to accept an inaccurate safety report or postpone every decision indefinitely. Humility about one’s perspective can improve inquiry while leaving room for a justified, provisional conclusion.
05 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Gandhian means and public action
Gandhian ethical discussion connects truthfulness, nonviolence and the relation between means and ends. The 1930 Salt March supplies a bounded historical illustration of public action linked to an everyday burden. Our ethical inference is that a movement’s method can embody or undermine the values of its proposed outcome. This is not a claim that one historical event establishes every interpretation of Gandhi or that its participants had one motive. Use the documented action to formulate a question about means, then test the present facts.
Willingness to bear costs oneself differs from imposing avoidable risk on uninvolved people. In the fictional library protest below, blocking the only ambulance route makes patients carry a danger they did not choose. The available peaceful venue preserves a route for opposition without that harm. Nonviolence is therefore not equivalent to doing nothing about an unjust policy, and principled resistance is not an automatic licence for any tactic. A current official or organiser must consider the responsibilities of the present role rather than borrow legitimacy from a historical name.
06 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Ambedkar: dignity and social democracy
Ambedkar’s 25 November 1949 Constituent Assembly speech connects liberty, equality and fraternity with the social foundations of democracy. Formal political equality can coexist with social arrangements that deny some people effective standing. The ethical lesson is to examine both institutional rules and the relationships through which people experience them. These principles should not be treated as isolated words: a conception of equality that suppresses liberty and a conception of liberty indifferent to entrenched exclusion both need criticism.
The speech also warns about political hero-worship. Respect for a contribution does not require surrendering the institutions that make leaders answerable. In an original public-service application, a popular committee chair should still disclose conflicts and accept review. This is an inference for analysing present decisions, not a claim that Ambedkar addressed that fictional committee. The point is to distinguish principled institutional loyalty from personal submission. A leader’s past success cannot supply advance justification for every future decision affecting other people’s rights and opportunities.
07 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Aristotle: virtue and practical wisdom
Aristotelian virtue ethics connects cultivated character with living well or flourishing, rather than viewing ethics only as isolated rule compliance. Practical wisdom matters because a fitting response depends on relevant circumstances and cannot always be generated by a mechanical formula. Habits can support good judgement, but merely repeating a behaviour is not enough if the person misunderstands what the situation requires. Ask what the action expresses and what disposition it reinforces, alongside its effect on others.
The doctrine of the mean is not an instruction to average extremes numerically. Courage is contrasted with cowardice and rashness: silence about a credible danger and a reckless unsupported accusation can both fail, though in different ways. Documented, proportionate escalation may express courage in the fictional engineering case. The appropriate act is not literally halfway between speaking and remaining silent. Nor does virtue mean splitting the difference between an honest and a dishonest report. Practical judgement identifies the right reason, manner and occasion, not a compromise for its own sake.
08 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Kant: duty, maxims and persons
Kantian ethics asks about the maxim on which an action is chosen: the principle connecting a situation, act and purpose. Universalisation tests that principle as a general law, rather than asking only whether this one result is attractive. It is not simply the Golden Rule or a projection of personal tastes. A false guarantee used whenever convenient invites scrutiny of the principle of deception itself, not merely the likelihood that the speaker will be caught.
Respecting persons as ends, never merely as means, gives another perspective on deception. Cooperation routinely involves people helping achieve one another’s purposes; that is not automatically forbidden. The problem arises when someone’s agency is bypassed, as when essential information is hidden to obtain agreement. Acting from duty also differs from complying only because it produces a reward. These distinctions illuminate the grants case without proving that every possible hard case has one uncontested Kantian answer. State the maxim and the agency concern instead of using the theory’s name as a verdict.
09 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Utility, acts, rules and distribution
Consequentialist reasoning evaluates actions or arrangements through their consequences. Utilitarian approaches focus on welfare impartially across those affected, rather than privileging the decision maker’s convenience. Mill’s account is not a crude tally of identical pleasant moments; it includes qualitative considerations. Not all consequentialist theories are utilitarian, and utilitarian interpretation itself contains debate. Specify the relevant good and whose experience is being counted before claiming that a proposal maximises benefit.
Act-oriented assessment considers the consequences of the particular choice; rule-oriented approaches consider the consequences of accepting or following a rule. Neither justifies ignoring uncertainty, indirect effects or future trust. A false assurance may bring immediate cooperation while creating reliance losses and undermining later truthful notices. An aggregate can also conceal a severe burden concentrated on a small group. Explain those effects and any remaining objection about rights rather than assume headcount settles the issue. Do not invent numerical utilities merely to make a qualitative comparison look precise.
10 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Rawls: fair institutions
Rawls’s original position uses a veil of ignorance to model fair choice of principles without knowing one’s social advantages. It is a justificatory device, not a prediction that actual negotiators will forget their interests. Its value for a public case is to question whether the rules would remain acceptable without knowing which position one would occupy. The focus is on fair institutions and their basic arrangements, rather than an automatic decision rule for each isolated charitable gift.
The priority order matters: equal basic liberties come first, fair equality of opportunity next, and then the difference principle permits inequalities only when arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Giving that group some benefit is insufficient if another feasible arrangement does better under the prior requirements. This does not produce an exact cash allocation without facts. In the welfare-design case, one must establish feasible designs, access burdens and effects. Naming the least advantaged is the beginning of inquiry, not evidence that a preferred programme satisfies the principle.
11 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Care, dependence and voice
Care ethics draws attention to relationships, dependency and particular needs that an abstractly identical rule can overlook. Caring work sustains people and can be unequally distributed or made invisible. In an administrative case, equal cash may leave some eligible users unable to access a benefit without mobility or communication assistance. Listening to those users identifies an issue that the cash amount alone misses. This is a reason to investigate actual needs, not a stereotype that everyone in a category is dependent in the same way.
Care is not unlimited self-sacrifice, automatic kin preference or permission to decide for another adult without asking. Power and recipient agency remain important: an unwanted “helpful” intervention can be paternalistic. Attention to close relationships also raises a challenge about absent strangers who deserve consideration. A strong answer examines how relational understanding and fair general criteria can correct each other. It should not present justice as necessarily heartless or care as necessarily biased, nor assume the tension disappears in every situation.
12 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Apply without name-dropping
Apply a theory by identifying the concrete reason it highlights. In a deception case, duty may question a maxim, care may ask about dependence on the promise, virtue may examine honesty and judgement, and consequence reasoning may trace trust and reliance. These perspectives can converge without becoming interchangeable. Where they conflict, identify the strongest argument on each side and the priority your decision uses. A list of famous names is not an analysis if the conclusion would be identical after deleting every name.
A defensible conclusion also needs facts, authority, feasible alternatives and review. If the case supplies no costs, do not manufacture a numerical allocation. If a junior employee can report danger but cannot close a bridge, recommend appropriate urgent escalation rather than invent closure power. Acknowledge residual costs and conditions that would change the choice. The five fictional analyses below illustrate this method. They are neither official answers nor claims that one philosopher mechanically endorses every detail of the proposed action.
13 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
Five fully reasoned original applications
All scenarios are original fiction. The supplied powers, resources and criteria define the case. These are reasoned teaching answers, not official solutions or guaranteed marks. A different choice needs equally careful justification.
ORIGINAL WORKED EXAMPLE
Worked case 1: A false assurance for a good end
Original fiction. A grants officer wants applicants to support a useful project and proposes saying funding is guaranteed, although approval is pending. He can issue an accurate conditional notice today and invite questions; no emergency requires a false statement. Compare the alternatives and justify what the actor should do.
Facts and authority: Original fiction. A grants officer wants applicants to support a useful project and proposes saying funding is guaranteed, although approval is pending. He can issue an accurate conditional notice today and invite questions; no emergency requires a false statement.
Stakeholders and duties: Applicants need informed planning, public officials need trust and the project needs legitimate cooperation.
Serious alternatives: 1. Give the false guarantee to increase support; 2. Say nothing until final approval despite an available accurate notice; 3. Publish the conditional status, reasons and next decision point
Reasoned choice and strongest alternative: A Kantian analysis tests a deceptive maxim and respect for applicants’ agency; consequence analysis adds reliance losses and long-term trust. These can converge on truth without claiming every deontologist or utilitarian must reach an identical verdict in all cases. Silence avoids misstatement but unnecessarily withholds useful verified facts.
The accurate conditional notice is supplied as available now. This makes silence a genuine but less informative alternative rather than the only honest response.
Implementation and review: Send accurate status, correct any draft already circulated and update when approval changes; review whether people relied on the earlier claim and arrange competent repair.
Answer Publish the conditional status, reasons and next decision point. Send accurate status, correct any draft already circulated and update when approval changes; review whether people relied on the earlier claim and arrange competent repair.
ORIGINAL WORKED EXAMPLE
Worked case 2: A safety report and practical courage
Original fiction. A junior engineer finds a material calculation error in a bridge report before opening. She has access to an independent technical reviewer tomorrow and can flag the concern to the authorised closure officer today; she cannot order closure herself. Compare the alternatives and justify what the actor should do.
Facts and authority: Original fiction. A junior engineer finds a material calculation error in a bridge report before opening. She has access to an independent technical reviewer tomorrow and can flag the concern to the authorised closure officer today; she cannot order closure herself.
Stakeholders and duties: Users need protection, colleague deserves fair assessment, junior owes competent reporting and authority must decide within mandate.
Serious alternatives: 1. Stay silent to protect career; 2. Publicly accuse the colleague of corruption without evidence; 3. Document the calculation, request urgent authorised precaution and independent review
Reasoned choice and strongest alternative: Virtue analysis distinguishes cowardly silence from rash accusation; courage uses practical judgement and evidence. Role-duty reasoning reinforces accurate escalation. Public accusation may attract fast attention but risks unsupported harm and does not itself secure a competent safety decision.
The engineer’s role permits documentation and urgent referral. The authorised decision maker must assess precaution while the independent technical review resolves the calculation.
Implementation and review: Preserve calculations, alert competent authority immediately and seek a response proportionate to credible risk; escalate lack of response through available channels, revising after technical findings.
Answer Document the calculation, request urgent authorised precaution and independent review. Preserve calculations, alert competent authority immediately and seek a response proportionate to credible risk; escalate lack of response through available channels, revising after technical findings.
ORIGINAL WORKED EXAMPLE
Worked case 3: Non-harm in a public protest
Original fiction. Residents oppose closure of their only library branch. The organising committee can hold a permitted peaceful meeting in a square. Some propose blocking the only ambulance access road; no alternative emergency route exists. Compare the alternatives and justify what the actor should do.
Facts and authority: Original fiction. Residents oppose closure of their only library branch. The organising committee can hold a permitted peaceful meeting in a square. Some propose blocking the only ambulance access road; no alternative emergency route exists.
Stakeholders and duties: Residents have participation interests, patients need urgent access, organisers owe attention to nonparticipants and authorities should hear evidence.
Serious alternatives: 1. Block the ambulance route to maximise attention; 2. Cancel every form of protest; 3. Use the available peaceful venue, publish evidence and seek a formal hearing
Reasoned choice and strongest alternative: Gandhian means/ends and Jain attention to harm both illuminate burdens placed on uninvolved people, without collapsing the traditions into one theory. Nonviolence is not passive acceptance of library closure. Blocking access has publicity value but makes vulnerable patients bear involuntary risk.
The complete case expressly supplies a permitted venue; without that fact, feasibility would need checking. Keeping emergency access clear does not settle the separate merits of library closure.
Implementation and review: Keep emergency access clear, communicate demands and request a dated response; review lawful further action if no response, without inventing permission to obstruct vital access.
Answer Use the available peaceful venue, publish evidence and seek a formal hearing. Keep emergency access clear, communicate demands and request a dated response; review lawful further action if no response, without inventing permission to obstruct vital access.
ORIGINAL WORKED EXAMPLE
Worked case 4: Punishment or corrective compassion
Original fiction. A clerk misses one internal deadline after misunderstood instructions. The error is correctable today, no evidence of deliberate concealment exists and supervisor can correct the file and give a fair opportunity to explain. Compare the alternatives and justify what the actor should do.
Facts and authority: Original fiction. A clerk misses one internal deadline after misunderstood instructions. The error is correctable today, no evidence of deliberate concealment exists and supervisor can correct the file and give a fair opportunity to explain.
Stakeholders and duties: Users need correction, clerk needs fair treatment, team needs reliability and supervisor must avoid both cruelty and neglect.
Serious alternatives: 1. Publicly humiliate the clerk; 2. Ignore the error entirely in the name of compassion; 3. Correct promptly, hear the explanation and improve the instruction/check process
Reasoned choice and strongest alternative: Buddhist attention to intention and harmful reactive states can question anger-driven humiliation; care notices dependency and voice; duty preserves correction. Compassion does not erase responsibility. Ignoring the error avoids discomfort but leaves users exposed; intention limits blame without removing repair.
A fair explanation can change the supervisor’s view of responsibility. It does not make the missed deadline disappear, so practical correction remains necessary today.
Implementation and review: Correct today, explain the required standard and arrange a bounded check on the next relevant task; review recurrence or new evidence before changing the response.
Answer Correct promptly, hear the explanation and improve the instruction/check process. Correct today, explain the required standard and arrange a bounded check on the next relevant task; review recurrence or new evidence before changing the response.
ORIGINAL WORKED EXAMPLE
Worked case 5: Equal cash and unequal access
Original fiction. A welfare-design committee has a fixed support budget. All eligible users would receive equal cash under one proposal, but some need mobility or communication assistance to access that benefit. The committee can recommend designs but cannot change legal eligibility; no assistance costs or allocation figures are supplied. Compare the alternatives and justify what the actor should do.
Facts and authority: Original fiction. A welfare-design committee has a fixed support budget. All eligible users would receive equal cash under one proposal, but some need mobility or communication assistance to access that benefit. The committee can recommend designs but cannot change legal eligibility; no assistance costs or allocation figures are supplied.
Stakeholders and duties: Users face unequal practical access, taxpayers need justified use, implementers need feasible delivery and future users depend on a durable design.
Serious alternatives: 1. Adopt equal cash and ignore access barriers; 2. Give all funds to the most visible claimant without criteria; 3. Compare lawful designs including feasible access support, seeking costs and impacts before final allocation
Reasoned choice and strongest alternative: Care identifies dependency and practical assistance; Rawlsian reasoning asks about fair institutional arrangements and the least advantaged within liberty/opportunity priorities. Equal cash is not necessarily equal effective access. Do not claim any assistance package satisfies the difference principle without comparing feasible alternatives and establishing effects.
The strongest equal-cash proposal has simplicity and predictable administration. The committee should test whether feasible access support improves the situation without assuming unknown costs or overriding eligibility.
Implementation and review: Obtain costs, consult users accessibly and verify authority/constraints, then give a conditional recommendation with distributional reasons; review completion and unmet needs, not merely disbursement totals.
Answer Compare lawful designs including feasible access support, seeking costs and impacts before final allocation. Obtain costs, consult users accessibly and verify authority/constraints, then give a conditional recommendation with distributional reasons; review completion and unmet needs, not merely disbursement totals.
14 / UNDERSTAND & APPLY
12 questions with explained answers
Try each question first. Then compare your reasons, factual assumptions and limits with the explanation.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 1
Two theories support the same honest disclosure. Does this mean they are identical?
Reveal answer & reasoning
No. One may emphasise duty and agency, another expected trust and welfare. State the reason, not only the shared outcome.
Compare the justification, not only the verdict. Shared outcomes can arise from different views about what matters and diverge when the facts change.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 2
A trainee equates dharma with obeying any supervisor. Correct the claim.
Reveal answer & reasoning
Dharma is a diverse contextual idea of duty/right conduct, not a universal permission for blind obedience. Test the particular role claim and harm.
The claim collapses a diverse concept into one hierarchical instruction. Explain the actual responsibility and whether the command is defensible under present duties.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 3
A supervisor intended to help but caused avoidable harm. Does emphasis on intention remove the duty to repair?
Reveal answer & reasoning
No. Intention affects ethical assessment, but attention to suffering and disciplined conduct still supports correction; do not reduce Buddhist ethics to intention alone.
A mistake without malice may warrant a different blame judgement from deliberate wrongdoing. Repair still responds to harm and future risk.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 4
Does many-sidedness imply every factual assertion must be accepted?
Reveal answer & reasoning
No. Recognising partial perspectives motivates humility and careful qualification, not abandonment of evidence or equal truth for contradictions.
Humility about perspective is compatible with checking evidence. A technically false assertion does not become equally valid merely because someone sincerely holds it.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 5
Can a protester invoke nonviolence while blocking the sole emergency route?
Reveal answer & reasoning
Absence of direct assault does not remove foreseeable harm to patients. Evaluate means and seek the supplied peaceful alternative.
Use the complete library-protest case above, which supplies the permitted peaceful square and says no alternative ambulance route exists. That availability makes continued protest without blocking emergency access feasible.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 6
A popular leader asks supporters to abolish review of her decisions. Apply Ambedkar’s warning without denying her achievements.
Reveal answer & reasoning
Recognise contributions while maintaining institutional checks and equal standing; admiration does not justify surrendering accountability.
Institutional review protects those affected by future decisions. Recognising a contribution does not provide evidence that all later exercises of power will be justified.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 7
A trainee says courage is halfway between cowardice and courage. Repair both errors.
Reveal answer & reasoning
Courage is contrasted with cowardice and rashness; the mean concerns fitting judgement in context, not an arithmetic halfway point.
The second extreme is rashness, not courage itself. The fitting response depends on reasons and circumstances, not dividing a scale by two.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 8
A clerk says Kantian ethics is simply doing to others what I personally enjoy. Why is this inadequate?
Reveal answer & reasoning
Universalisation tests a maxim as a general principle, not personal taste; respect for persons concerns their agency rather than projecting one’s preferences.
A maxim is a principle for acting. Personal enjoyment does not establish that the principle can be universalised or that another person’s agency is respected.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 9
A utilitarian count ignores a small group losing its only access route. What must the analysis add?
Reveal answer & reasoning
Severity, distribution, alternatives, indirect effects and uncertainty; explain any remaining rights objection rather than assume a headcount settles it.
The issue is not only how many people gain. A sole-route loss may be severe and hard to reverse, and an alternative design might preserve benefits while reducing harm.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 10
An inequality gives the least advantaged a small benefit although another feasible arrangement benefits them more. Is that sufficient under Rawls?
Reveal answer & reasoning
No. Subject to equal basic liberties and fair equality of opportunity, the difference principle requires the greatest benefit to the least advantaged, not merely some benefit.
The comparison must consider feasible alternatives under the prior principles. A small gain cannot satisfy greatest benefit merely because it is better than nothing.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 11
A caregiver decides everything for an adult recipient without asking. Does care ethics automatically endorse this?
Reveal answer & reasoning
No. Attend to dependency and needs while preserving agency and checking power; care is not blanket paternalism.
Listen to the person’s preferences and identify any actual decision-making constraint. Dependency does not automatically remove autonomy.
ORIGINAL PRACTICE · 12
Using the fixed-budget case, can you prescribe exact amounts without cost data?
Reveal answer & reasoning
No. Identify relevant principles, seek costs and constraints, compare feasible designs and make a bounded recommendation; no invented numerical allocation follows from naming Rawls or care.
The problem supplies a fixed budget and assistance needs but no prices. Seek those missing facts and compare designs; a precise amount would be invented.
KEEP THE BIG IDEAS
Quick revision
Traditions contain internal debate; identify the concept doing the work.
Non-attachment is not indifference to foreseeable harm.
Many-sidedness does not make every factual claim true.
Courage is neither cowardice nor rashness, and the mean is not arithmetic.
Rawls gives liberty and fair opportunity priority before greatest benefit to the least advantaged.
Care notices dependency while preserving agency and concern for strangers.
The teaching notes, passages, worked explanations and practice are original. Official references identify the assessment framework and skill scope; they do not endorse this lesson or license official question reproduction.