Gadyam: Scoring an Inference Answer Under a Three-Part Rubric
During the March model examination, a candidate answers the second Gadyam question, which carries 6 marks. The passage includes the sentence: “मन्त्रिणा प्रोक्तं वचनं श्रुत्वा राजा तूष्णीं बभूव, न च तद् वचनम् आदृतवान्।” The question asks, in Sanskrit and within 30 words: “राजा किम् अकरोत्? तेन किं सूच्यते?” Candidate A writes: “राजा मन्त्रिणः वचनम् अशृणोत्।” Candidate B writes: “राजा वचनं श्रुत्वापि तत् न आदृतवान्; अतः तस्य वचने असम्मतिः सूच्यते।” The marking scheme allots 2 marks for the literal action, 2 for the contrast marked by “न च”, and 2 for the inferred attitude. The examiner must decide whether B’s inference is over-reading, and whether A’s single-clause answer can receive partial credit. The script is otherwise accurate, with no spelling errors. Scores must be entered before the afternoon moderation meeting.
1. Score Candidate A out of 6 and Candidate B out of 6 against the three rubric components. For A, decide whether “अशृणोत्” satisfies the literal-action component.
Read the worked answer
Candidate A: 1/6.
- Literal action: 1/2. The main predicate is “तूष्णीं बभूव” after “श्रुत्वा”; A reports only the hearing, not the silence. “अशृणोत्” is true but incomplete.
- Contrast: 0/2. The “न च” clause is absent.
- Inference: 0/2. No attitude is stated or signalled.
Candidate B: 5/6.
- Literal action: 1/2. B captures non-acceptance (“न आदृतवान्”) but omits “तूष्णीं बभूव”.
- Contrast: 2/2. “श्रुत्वापि … न” expresses the concessive contrast correctly.
- Inference: 2/2. “असम्मतिः” is introduced by “सूच्यते”, so it is presented as an inference, not as a direct statement.
The key judgement is that B loses one mark for the omitted silence, not for inferring. A loses almost everything because the answer stops at the subordinate action.
2. Is B’s “असम्मतिः” an over-reading? Rewrite B’s answer to include the omitted literal detail and stay within 30 words.
Read the worked answer
It is not an over-reading. “न आदृतवान्” means “did not receive with respect”; silence after hearing strengthens that. The noun “असम्मतिः” is stronger than the passage strictly says, but B marks it with “सूच्यते”, which is exactly what the second question asks: “तेन किं सूच्यते?” A safer wording is “अनादरः” rather than “असम्मतिः”.
Suggested rewrite:
“राजा मन्त्रिणः वचनं श्रुत्वा तूष्णीं बभूव, न च तत् आदृतवान्; अनेन तस्य वचने अनादरः सूच्यते।”
This keeps the literal silence, the contrast, and the inference, and it stays under 30 words.
3. What single pre-writing instruction would target A’s error without encouraging over-reading?
Read the worked answer
Use a two-column rough note: in the left column, copy every verb and particle (“श्रुत्वा”, “बभूव”, “न”, “च”); in the right column, write one short Sanskrit clause for each item. This forces the student to notice that “बभूव” is the main verb and that “न च” adds a second clause.
Add one restriction: “Do not add a reason or attitude unless the passage contains a causal or inferential word such as यतः, अतः, or सूच्यते.” That prevents the opposite error, where a student invents a motive. The instruction is narrow enough to use in the next Gadyam test and directly addresses A’s one-clause answer.