AS

Abhishek Singh· 2023

Question Q6GS1GS1

Explain the various stages of formation of the great Himalayas. How eastern Himalayas is different from western Himalayas?

Open scan (p.15)

Main Body

Ans

Himalayas were formed due to Continent-Continent Convergence between Indian and Eurasian plates.

Stages of formation:

1There are three broad phases of formation of himalayas.

Shivaliks => middle Himalayas => Great Himalayas

=> Sediments at Tethys Sea were folded & uplifted

2Phase I: Formation of Great Himalayas around 45 to 50 million years ago.

=> Sediments of Tethys sea were folded & uplifted

3Phase II: Formation of middle Himalayas around 35 to 45 million years ago.
3Phase III: Youngest: formation of Shivaliks range, between (2 to 20) mya

Difference between Eastern & Western Himalayas

Western | Eastern

1Extends from Indu => (1) Extends from Kali to Brahmaputra

river to Kali t. |

2Slope: More gentle & => Slope: Steep & Sharp ridge.

a long extending

— Abhishek Singh

131 words11 paragraphs

Diagram

Diagram showing three phases of Himalayan formation with Shivaliks, Middle Himalayas, and Great Himalayas labeled, showing plate convergence and subduction zone with Indian and Eurasian plates

Answer continues on next page
  • Clear identification of three phases with time periods
  • Correct timeline: 45-50 mya, 35-45 mya, 2-20 mya
  • Mentions plate convergence mechanism
  • References Tethys Sea sediments
  • Compares Eastern and Western Himalayas structurally
Steal this copy's techniques PremiumAI pulls out the reusable moves — pick the ones you want as flashcards
Compare my answer PremiumSee where this topper beats you

Topper

Abhishek Singh

2023

Subject & Paper

GS1GS1

Topic

Physical Geography

Mountain Formation

Himalayan Orogeny

Writing Stats

131

Total words

11

Paragraphs

Descriptive and systematic

Tone

Linked PYQ

5. Answer the questions that follow this passage : 10x5=50 It is worth attempting some head-on thoughts about 'meaning'. Confronted with passages of text you may sometimes face a choice between leading questions : 'what does it mean' versus 'how does it work'. It will be evident that words and phrases carry lexical meanings, sometimes in multiple array of possible signifying activities, sometimes also echoing other literary or historical usage. It will be evident too that what words mean is a different question from what a text-passage means; or what are the meanings at work in a whole literary composition, its thematic conflicts and developments and layers of interpretation. Also a further complication arises when we speak of what a person means, of his or her intention to be understood in a certain way, through speech or action; thus concerning Cordelia's silence in King Lear we may ask two slightly but importantly different questions : what does her silence mean, and what does she mean by her silence. In drama, these issues can be especially acute : what a particular speech 'means' will vary amongst its onstage auditors, some of whom may be more inward than others with part hidden purposes; and for the larger audience an initial array of distinct possible or probable meanings may be modified in retrospect by later disclosures or the 'dramatic irony' of subsequent events. It is fairly unlikely that questions of the playwright's own meaning or meaning-intention will feature strongly in this interplay of interpretation, though the choice of topic may indicate certain possible motives in the context of the times. Where personal character is represented as a focus for point-of-view interaction, as in narrative fiction, again what is meant may be an aspect of what this person means, in speech and action, or what this person is capable of successfully wishing to mean, depending on self-knowledge and expressed in the sense of actions consequentially undertaken, such actions then interpreted by others from differing viewpoints along significantly divergent lines. The resulting social complex of behavior, and the novelist's construction of an extended meaning-process in many strands, give the reader much work for imaginative and emotional intelligence, for sympathy tempered by judgment. Linguists and philosophers of language, and even lawyers, sometimes speak of 'plain sense', normative or 'ordinary-language' meaning; but students of literature know well that literary language is not ordinary, even when it adopts for stylistic purposes the speech patterns of natural utterance. Patterns of symbolism or constructed allegory, especially in pre-modern works, or tragic foreclosure in tightly plotted drama, may also require us to read for the sense of the design along more or less genre-specific lines of construal, just as earlier communities once read the pattern of daily events in terms of a directing providence. Both grammar and syntax inflect the stylistic pitch and meaning-effects of writing, and formal devices like prosody and meter and figuration will alert the reader to further aspects of meaning carried by structure and form—bringing into view what may be meant by 'carried' in this context. Richness of meaning may challenge or even defeat coherence of design; or it may reveal ordered depths of multiple significance (polysemy, ambiguity), or layers of structure and structure-echo, so that successive readings and succeeding generations of readers can discover constantly new insights and rewards. (a) What possible meanings exist beyond mere lexical meaning? (b) How differently significant are the two questions concerning Cordelia's silence in King Lear? (c) What special meaning to a speech does 'dramatic irony' give? (d) In what way is the meaning of a character's utterance limited and limiting in narrative fiction? (e) Explain the phrase 'the sense of the design'.

50M2013Answer the questions