Hydropower Essay When Your Family Benefits
You are writing the 45-minute analytical essay. The prompt is: ‘Nepal should stop building new hydropower projects on free-flowing rivers.’ You personally support rapid hydropower development because your uncle works at a dam site. The instruction sheet gives three facts: Nepal has about 6,000 rivers; installed hydropower capacity is about 2,800 MW against a potential of 43,000 MW; and one proposed 120 MW project would displace 120 households and affect a valley where trekking tourism earned NPR 1.2 billion last year. You have 600 words, no internet, and a scoring rubric that rewards a clear thesis, counter-argument, and evidence-based reasoning. You must not invent statistics. You must also leave 5 minutes to proofread. A neighbouring candidate asks to share your prepared examples before the timer starts.
1. State a thesis you could defend honestly given your personal view, and outline three body paragraphs. Explain how you would use the three facts without overclaiming.
Read the worked answer
A defensible thesis is: ‘Nepal should not ban all new hydropower, but it should require strategic environmental assessment, cumulative-impact review, and community consent before damming free-flowing rivers.’ This respects your development view while answering the prompt's demand for restriction. Body 1: energy need. Use 2,800 MW versus 43,000 MW to show the supply gap is real, but note that potential is not the same as feasible capacity; do not claim every river must be dammed. Body 2: local costs. Use the 120 displaced households and the NPR 1.2 billion tourism figure to argue that approval must compare livelihood and ecological losses, not just megawatts. Do not say tourism earns more than the project without project revenue data; say the figure shows a non-energy value that deserves accounting. Body 3: policy design. Propose river zoning, fast-track approval for low-impact projects, independent monitoring, and benefit-sharing. Use the facts as illustrations of the trade-off, not as proof of a general law.
2. How would you respond to the neighbouring candidate's request, and why does that response matter for exam integrity?
Read the worked answer
Decline politely and immediately: ‘I can't share notes during the exam, but good luck afterwards.’ Do not negotiate, show your sheet, or discuss examples across the aisle. The request is understandable under time pressure, but sharing prepared examples gives an unfair advantage and may breach the exam rules for both of you. It also costs you writing time and creates a distraction the invigilator may notice. If the candidate persists, keep your eyes on your own screen or paper and, if necessary, raise a hand quietly for the invigilator rather than arguing. After the exam, you can talk generally about preparation without revealing live prompt material. Integrity here is not only about avoiding punishment; it protects the fairness of the rubric, which is meant to assess your reasoning under the same constraints as everyone else.
3. The rubric rewards counter-argument. Write the topic sentence and two-sentence development of a counter-paragraph that acknowledges your own side's strongest objection.
Read the worked answer
Topic sentence: ‘The strongest objection to a stricter approval regime is that delay raises electricity costs and keeps households dependent on imported fuel and biomass.’ Development: ‘That objection has force: every additional review stage can postpone a project that would displace diesel generation and reduce indoor air pollution. The response is not to remove review but to design a time-bound, one-window process with fast-track categories for small, low-impact projects and published reasons for refusal, so that scrutiny does not become indefinite delay.’ This acknowledges the real trade-off rather than strawmanning opponents. It also keeps the essay consistent with your thesis: you are arguing for better approval, not for obstruction. Avoid claiming that delay is harmless or that all objections come from vested interests; the rubric rewards fair representation of the other side.