Look at the data below for two fictional states:
| State | Per Capita Income (₹) | Infant Mortality Rate (per 1000) | Literacy Rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| State X | 3,10,000 | 32 | 79 |
| State Y | 2,20,000 | 8 | 95 |
If you had to recommend which state is more developed, which would you choose and why? What does your reasoning suggest about using per capita income as the sole indicator of development?
Generated by claude-sonnet-4-6 · 2026-06-26 13:22 · grounding rag
Model Answer
State Y is more developed, despite having a lower per capita income (₹2,20,000 vs ₹3,10,000).
State Y has a far lower Infant Mortality Rate (8 vs 32) and a significantly higher literacy rate (95% vs 79%). These indicators show that people in State Y are healthier and better educated — reflecting a higher quality of life.
This reasoning shows that per capita income alone is an inadequate indicator of development. As seen with Kerala and Haryana, a state with higher income may still lag in health and education. True development must consider multiple indicators, including IMR, literacy, and access to public facilities.
Source: Chapter 1 — Development, Income and Other Criteria / Public Facilities
---
Explanation
- The examiner expects you to clearly choose State Y and give two specific reasons from the data (IMR and literacy rate).
- Then link it to the broader lesson: per capita income is useful but not sufficient as a sole indicator — this is the core concept of Chapter 1.
- The Kerala–Haryana parallel from the textbook is the ideal reference to support your argument.
- Don't just state conclusions — briefly justify with data from the table.