Daily Current Affairs Quiz Prelims Practice 2027
- Cancer is currently a nationally notifiable disease under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897.
- The National Cancer Registry Programme functions under the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR).
- Seventeen Indian states have independently made cancer a notifiable disease, with Telangana the most recent.
- India's Population-Based and Hospital-Based Cancer Registries, taken together, cover more than half of the country's population.
Statements 2 and 3 are correct — the National Cancer Registry Programme functions under ICMR, and 17 states have independently made cancer a notifiable disease, with Telangana the most recent. Statement 1 is incorrect: cancer is not a nationally notifiable disease in India — the notification has been undertaken only by individual states, not mandated under the Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897 (a category-conflation trap mistaking state-level action for a national mandate). Statement 4 is also incorrect: the registries cover only 10–16% of the population, not a majority — inflating a small coverage figure into "more than half" is a straightforward numerical-inversion trap.
The continental shelf is broadest off Gujarat and part of Maharashtra, and considerably narrower along the rest of India's coastline. The other options — Tamil Nadu, Odisha and Kerala — are plausible coastal states but represent an attribute-reversal trap that swaps in equally prominent coastlines without matching the specific geographic fact about shelf width.
- The India Meteorological Department's "below normal" monsoon classification means rainfall below 94% of the Long Period Average (LPA).
- India's foodgrain output in 2024-25 declined compared to the previous year on account of weak rainfall.
- Historically significant El Niño-linked drought years for India include 1972, 1982, 2009, and 2015.
Statements I and III are correct — the IMD defines "below normal" as rainfall below 94% of the Long Period Average, and the historically significant El Niño-linked drought years for India include 1972, 1982, 2009 and 2015. Statement II is incorrect: India's foodgrain output in 2024-25 actually rose to 357.73 million metric tonnes, up 25.43 million tonnes over the previous year — a temporal-conflation trap that projects a current-season rainfall risk backward onto an already-confirmed and positive past harvest figure.
- A. Ethanol Interest Subvention Scheme (2018–2022) 1. Eased interstate and intrastate movement of ethanol
- B. Long-Term Offtake Agreements 2. Guaranteed ethanol producers a fixed price
- C. Administered Pricing Mechanism 3. Ensured assured demand and timely payment between Oil Marketing Companies and Dedicated Ethanol Plants
- D. Amendments to the Industries (Development and Regulation) Act, 1953 4. Provided financial support for setting up molasses- and grain-based distilleries
The correct match is A-4, B-3, C-2, D-1: the Ethanol Interest Subvention Scheme financed setting up molasses- and grain-based distilleries (4); Long-Term Offtake Agreements secured assured demand and timely payment between OMCs and Dedicated Ethanol Plants (3); the Administered Pricing Mechanism guaranteed producers a fixed price (2); and IDR Act amendments eased ethanol movement across states (1). Option (c) is the principal role-swap trap, interchanging the descriptions of Long-Term Offtake Agreements and the Administered Pricing Mechanism — assured-demand contracts and fixed-price guarantees are distinct mechanisms frequently confused.
- I. A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu
- II. Kotdwar Bar Association resolution (Uttarakhand High Court)
- III. Hubballi Bar Association episode (Karnataka High Court)
- IV. Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu (Madras High Court)
The correct chronological sequence is I–II–III–IV: A.S. Mohammed Rafi v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) → Kotdwar Bar Association resolution, Uttarakhand High Court (2019) → Hubballi Bar Association episode, Karnataka High Court (2020) → Manikandan Nair v. State of Tamil Nadu, Madras High Court (2025). Option (c) is the narrative-order-vs-calendar-order trap — it swaps II and III, matching how such episodes might be casually recalled together (both being High Court episodes outside Tamil Nadu) rather than their actual calendar sequence. Anchor each case to its decade and year rather than the order in which a source text discusses it.
