I was solving questions at the end of my chapter where I encounter the question below:

How did the paharias respond to the coming of outsiders?

By the reason of logic, I would expect myself to write what the paharias did concerning the outsiders. Perhaps they revolted against it, killed them or did anything affecting them. But then most of the answers that I read online or in my solution book look like:

enter image description here
Taken from here

i.e. describing how their lives underwent various changes on their coming and not what I was hoping for based on logic. I know my question would be thought of as off-topic. But, this is a problem I've been facing for quite a time now and I don't know why my brain tends to analyse something in a hypercritical way.


Your answer should not rely on the definition of "response" but rather on your understanding of the source material. A "response" is something that occurs after some "cause", or "instigation". So, for example, you would not write about something that happened before the "coming of outsiders", or something that was unrelated to this event. Whatever you say the paharias did, it has to be a result of this event.

The answers in your linked source seem to show a sequence of events, all of which together count as the paharias' "response". I'm not sure why the answers are formatted in this way, as it looks like some kind of multiple choice question. Normally when writing a sequence of events, we use numbering rather than lettering.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.