UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Pull factors are conditions that attract people to a new place. In rural–urban migration, higher wages, better services and perceived opportunities in cities draw migrants. These forces operate alongside push factors that drive people away from origin areas. Therefore, the availability of better jobs and higher wages in cities exemplifies a pull factor.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because crop failure and drought are classic push factors. They push people out due to hardship rather than attracting them into a new place. They describe conditions at the place of origin.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because political conflict and violence are push factors that drive people away from their villages due to insecurity. They represent adverse conditions at the origin, not attractions at the destination.

Option C:
Option C is correct since employment opportunities and higher income act as magnets. Migrants choose cities hoping to improve their living conditions through better jobs and wages, which is the essence of a pull factor.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because land degradation and declining fertility push farmers away from rural areas. These are again problems at the place of origin rather than pull factors in cities.

Pull factors are attractive conditions at the destination that draw migrants. In rural–urban migration, expectations of higher wages, regular salaried jobs and better services in cities act as powerful pulls. People compare these perceived benefits with conditions in their villages and decide to move if they expect an improvement in their lives. Hence, better jobs and higher wages illustrate a typical pull factor.

Option A:
Option A is a push factor because drought and crop failure drive people away from origin areas rather than attract them to a specific destination.

Option B:
Option B is also a push factor, as people flee violence for safety, but it does not itself describe the attractions of towns.

Option C:
Option C is correct since higher wages and employment opportunities in urban centres draw people and fit the classic definition of pull factors.

Option D:
Option D again describes a push factor linked to environmental degradation in the village, not an attraction in the city.

High recovery targets ensure that used batteries become a source of materials like lithium, cobalt and nickel. This lowers pressure on mining and reduces dependence on imports for these critical minerals. Proper recycling also cuts pollution from hazardous battery components, protecting workers and communities. Together, these factors strengthen the sustainability and resilience of India’s clean-energy and mobility transitions.

Option A:
This option is incorrect because recovery targets aim to reduce, not increase, import dependence by reusing materials already in circulation.

Option B:
This option correctly links resource recovery, pollution reduction and supply-chain security, showing why strict recycling norms are important for sustainable development.

Option C:
The rules do not ban battery use; they regulate disposal and recycling to make electric mobility more, not less, sustainable.

Option D:
Informal burning and unsafe dismantling are precisely the practices the rules seek to replace with authorised, standard-compliant recycling facilities.

Push factors are disadvantages at the place of origin that drive people to leave, while pull factors are attractions at the destination that draw them in. Landless rural households often lack secure livelihoods and are pushed to look for work elsewhere, while cities are perceived to offer better job opportunities.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because better health facilities in villages would tend to retain people; urban unemployment would discourage rather than attract migrants.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since high rural wages are a reason to stay, and poor urban services are not a pull factor.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because village industrialisation can create local jobs, reducing the need to migrate, and lack of housing in cities is a negative, not an attraction.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it reflects a realistic combination frequently cited in migration studies: rural landlessness as a push factor and urban employment prospects as a pull factor.

NEP 2020 notes research that multilingual children often develop stronger cognitive flexibility and problem-solving skills, and stresses that knowing multiple Indian and foreign languages supports cultural rootedness, social cohesion and improved employment prospects.

Option A:
The idea that learning many languages confuses students is rejected by the research evidence cited in the policy.

Option B:
This option is correct because it captures the cognitive, cultural and economic advantages of multilingualism highlighted in NEP 2020.

Option C:
Encouraging learners to abandon their mother tongues would undermine cultural identity and is contrary to the policy’s emphasis on valuing home languages.

Option D:
The policy prioritises Indian languages alongside English and other foreign languages; it does not insist on learning only foreign languages for overseas jobs.