Kompass

Question audit

Every question in the bank, with what it is intended to measure, which way each option pushes, the wording decisions behind it and the source the scenario is based on. This is the internal working file, published rather than kept private.

Automated balance checks

These checks run in the test suite on every change. If any of them fails, the build fails.

Every dimension has at least five questions behind it.
Every dimension can be pushed fully to both of its poles.
The total pull available toward each pole of a dimension is within 20% of the other.
The first option listed does not consistently favour one direction on any dimension.
Agreeing with the statement does not consistently mean the same ideological direction.
Reverse-coding metadata matches the actual option ordering.
No question or answer option contains an ideological label.
No question or answer option contains emotionally loaded language from a banned list.
Every question documents its wording decisions and its source.
The 31-question short form passes every rule above, and agrees with the full bank on the leading tradition for every profile it is tested against.

eco-0101 · Economy

In the same city, one person earns ₹10 crore a year. Another works two jobs and still struggles to afford food.

Should the government do something about a gap that size?

Direction — eco-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Mostly no. People should generally keep what they earn, and the gap itself is not the government’s business.	Wealth and inequality +1
2	Yes, but only up to a point — taxes and a basic safety net, without trying to close the gap.	Wealth and inequality +0.35
3	Yes. Higher earners should contribute substantially more so that extreme gaps get smaller.	Wealth and inequality -0.5
4	Yes. A gap that large points to something wrong in how the economy is built, and the structure itself should change.	Wealth and inequality -1The state in the economy -0.5
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: Property in what one earns, versus a shared claim on it.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how far you think the state should go in changing economic outcomes it did not directly cause.
Still unsure?: Try it twice. First imagine the high earner inherited the money and the struggling worker has two jobs. Then imagine the high earner built a business from nothing and the struggling worker turned down steady work. Does your answer move?
Wording notes: Neither person is described with a moral adjective. The reflection prompt is deliberately two-sided so it cannot nudge in one direction. "₹10 crore" is a concrete Indian figure; the international build substitutes a locally equivalent sum.
Source or basis: Standard framing of the redistribution debate; cf. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971) and Nozick, Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974), which give the two poles their canonical statements.

eco-0201 · Economy

A government can noticeably improve public hospitals — shorter waits, better equipment, more staff. Paying for it means income tax rises for the middle class and above, not only for the very rich.

Which would you choose?

Direction — eco-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	A significant rise. Better public hospitals are worth paying more tax for.	Wealth and inequality -1The state in the economy -0.6
2	A small rise, funding a limited improvement.	Wealth and inequality +0.3
3	Keep taxes where they are. Households should decide how to spend that money, including on private care.	Wealth and inequality +1The state in the economy +0.5
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: Universal provision funded collectively, versus disposable income left with households.
Weight: 1.2
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This asks whether you would personally pay more so that a service is available to everyone, rather than whether you like the service in the abstract.
Still unsure?: The cost here is real and lands on ordinary earners, not only the wealthy. Would your answer change if the same money instead went directly to households to spend as they chose?
Wording notes: Options run from the tax-raising choice to the tax-holding one, counterbalancing eco-01 where the order is the other way round. The tax cost is deliberately made to fall on the middle class so this is not a costless "should hospitals be good?" question, which almost everyone would agree with.
Source or basis: Public-finance trade-off familiar from Indian Union Budget health allocation debates and from comparative health-financing literature (OECD Health at a Glance).

eco-0301 · Economy

A loss-making state-owned airline needs continual public money to keep flying. A private buyer would run it commercially, which would probably mean fewer jobs and fewer unprofitable routes to small towns.

What should the government do?

Direction — eco-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Keep it public. Some services matter for reasons that do not show up in a profit statement.	The state in the economy -1
2	Keep it public but require it to break even, cutting what it cannot justify.	The state in the economy -0.3
3	Sell it, but attach conditions protecting small-town routes for a fixed period.	The state in the economy +0.45
4	Sell it outright. Running an airline is not something a government needs to do.	The state in the economy +1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: The state in the economy
Opposing value: Public ownership as a policy instrument, versus commercial discipline.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think the state should own and run commercial enterprises, which is a separate question from how much it taxes.
Still unsure?: The public money keeping it flying comes from taxes that could fund something else. The routes it would drop serve people with few alternatives. Both of those are real.
Wording notes: Both costs are stated concretely (subsidy burden on one side, dropped routes and jobs on the other) so neither option reads as obviously prudent. Modelled on a real category of case rather than a named airline, to avoid importing a partisan argument.
Source or basis: Disinvestment policy debate in India; Department of Investment and Public Asset Management (DIPAM) policy statements on strategic disinvestment.

eco-0401 · Economy

A proposal would guarantee every adult a small monthly payment from the state, enough to cover basic food and rent, with no conditions and no work requirement.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — eco-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly support	Wealth and inequality -1
2	Support	Wealth and inequality -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Wealth and inequality 0
4	Oppose	Wealth and inequality +0.5
5	Strongly oppose	Wealth and inequality +1

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality
Opposing value: Unconditional entitlement, versus support earned or means-tested.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think a basic income should be unconditional, or whether public support should be tied to circumstances or effort.
Still unsure?: Supporters argue it removes the bureaucracy and stigma of proving you deserve help. Critics argue it weakens the link between work and income and costs more than targeted support. Both effects have been observed in pilot studies.
Wording notes: The scale is presented support-first here and oppose-first on other economic items, so that primacy effects do not accumulate in one direction. The reflection gives one substantive argument per side and cites that both are empirically observed, rather than adjudicating.
Source or basis: Madhya Pradesh unconditional cash transfer pilot (SEWA/UNICEF, 2011–13); Finland basic income experiment final report (Kela, 2020).

eco-0501 · Economy

A large company wants to build a factory that would employ several thousand people. Environmental and labour clearances would take about two years.

What should the rules do?

Direction — eco-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Clear it quickly. Long approval processes cost jobs that people need now.	The state in the economy +1Environment and growth -0.4
2	Shorten the process but keep every substantive check in place.	The state in the economy +0.35
3	Keep the checks as they are. Two years is the price of getting it right.	The state in the economy -0.5Environment and growth +0.3
4	Strengthen them. Affected workers and residents should be able to block the project outright.	The state in the economy -1Environment and growth +0.4
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: The state in the economy (+ Environment and growth)
Opposing value: Precaution and voice for the affected, versus speed and employment.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how you weigh regulatory protection against the cost of delay — a trade-off that exists whichever way it is resolved.
Still unsure?: The jobs are real and so is the risk the clearances exist to catch. If the factory turned out to be safe, two years of employment were lost. If it turned out to be unsafe, the checks were the only thing standing in the way.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Avoids the loaded terms "red tape" and "corporate polluter" — the phrases "approval processes" and "the company" are used instead.
Source or basis: Environmental clearance procedure under the Environment Impact Assessment Notification, 2006 (India), and the recurring public debate over its timelines.

eco-0601 · Economy

Workers at a warehouse want to form a union to bargain over pay and shift patterns. The company says this will raise its costs and that it may move operations elsewhere.

What should the law allow?

Direction — eco-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Workers should have a strong legal right to organise and to strike, and the company should have to bargain.	Wealth and inequality -1
2	Workers should be able to organise, with limits on strikes in essential operations.	Wealth and inequality -0.4
3	Pay and conditions are best settled between each worker and the employer, with the state setting only a floor.	Wealth and inequality +0.6
4	Employers and workers should be free to agree whatever terms they choose, with no mandated bargaining at all.	Wealth and inequality +1The state in the economy +0.5
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: Collective bargaining power, versus freedom of contract.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you see the employment relationship as an equal bargain between two parties, or as one where the law needs to correct an imbalance.
Still unsure?: The company’s warning may be a real constraint or a negotiating position, and there is usually no way to tell from outside. Does that uncertainty change what the law should assume?
Wording notes: The company is given a stated reason rather than a motive, so it is neither villain nor victim.
Source or basis: Industrial Relations Code, 2020 (India); ILO Convention 98 on the right to organise and collective bargaining.

eco-0701 · Economy

Some argue that essential utilities — water supply, electricity distribution, the rail network — should be publicly owned even if a private operator could run them more cheaply.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — eco-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly support	The state in the economy -1
2	Support	The state in the economy -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	The state in the economy 0
4	Oppose	The state in the economy +0.5
5	Strongly oppose	The state in the economy +1

Intended dimension: The state in the economy
Opposing value: Public control of essentials, versus efficiency wherever it is found.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This separates the question of who should own essential infrastructure from the question of who runs it most cheaply.
Still unsure?: The question deliberately concedes that the private operator would be cheaper. If you still prefer public ownership, it is worth naming what you think the extra cost buys.
Wording notes: The stipulated cheapness of the private option is a deliberate handicap on the public-ownership answer, offsetting the general tendency of respondents to favour public provision of essentials when cost is unstated.
Source or basis: Comparative literature on utility privatisation; UK rail and water franchising reviews; Indian state electricity distribution reform debates.

eco-0801 · Economy

A family business has grown over three generations and is now worth a great deal. When the owner dies, the state could take a large share in inheritance tax before it passes to the children.

What should happen?

Direction — eco-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Nothing should be taken. It was already taxed when it was earned, and passing it on is the point of building it.	Wealth and inequality +1
2	A small share, above a high threshold, so most families are unaffected.	Wealth and inequality +0.25
3	A substantial share. Large inherited fortunes give some people a head start no one earned.	Wealth and inequality -0.7
4	Most of it. Wealth should not accumulate across generations in the same families.	Wealth and inequality -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality
Opposing value: Equality of starting position, versus the right to provide for one’s family.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Inheritance separates two ideas that usually travel together: reward for effort, and the distribution of wealth people did nothing to acquire.
Still unsure?: The person who built the business did the work; the person inheriting it did not. But the tax falls on the one who built it, in the form of what they may leave behind.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The business is described sympathetically (three generations, built up) to counterweight the natural pull of the inequality framing used in eco-01.
Source or basis: India abolished estate duty in 1985; the periodic debate over reintroduction. OECD, Inheritance Taxation in OECD Countries (2021).

eco-0901 · Economy

Rents in a major city have risen faster than wages for a decade. Long-standing residents are being priced out; landlords say returns are what make building worthwhile.

What should the city do?

Direction — eco-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Remove restrictions on building instead. Supply is the constraint, and controls on rent reduce the incentive to build.	Wealth and inequality +1The state in the economy +0.7
2	Subsidise lower-income tenants directly, leaving rents to be set by the market.	Wealth and inequality +0.2The state in the economy +0.3
3	Cap how fast rents may rise, while allowing new building to be exempt for a period.	Wealth and inequality -0.5The state in the economy -0.4
4	Build housing publicly and let it at cost, so that a large share of the market is outside private ownership.	Wealth and inequality -1The state in the economy -0.8
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: That housing costs are a supply problem created by restriction, and that intervening in price rather than quantity makes it worse.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Housing is where most households meet the economy most forcefully, and the four responses correspond to genuinely different views about what markets do well.
Still unsure?: Each option has a well-documented failure mode: building alone can take a decade, subsidies can be captured by landlords, caps can reduce supply, and public building depends on the state doing it competently. Which failure would you rather risk?
Wording notes: Names the landlord’s reason rather than treating the position as self-evidently indefensible, and gives the deregulation option first so the ordering does not favour intervention. The reflection states each option’s known weakness so no route reads as costless.
Source or basis: The four policy families in the urban housing literature: supply-side liberalisation, demand-side vouchers, rent stabilisation, and public or social housing at scale.

eco-1001 · Economy

Some argue that the law should set a wage floor high enough to live on, even if that means some employers cannot afford to keep every job they currently offer.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — eco-10
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Wealth and inequality -1The state in the economy -0.5
2	Agree	Wealth and inequality -0.5The state in the economy -0.25
3	Neutral or unsure	Wealth and inequality 0
4	Disagree	Wealth and inequality +0.5The state in the economy +0.25
5	Strongly disagree	Wealth and inequality +1The state in the economy +0.5

Intended dimension: Wealth and inequality (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: That a price floor on labour prices the least productive workers out of employment altogether, which harms exactly the people it is meant to protect.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: A wage floor is the most direct instrument a state has for changing market outcomes, and the trade-off it may involve is stated rather than assumed away.
Still unsure?: The empirical evidence on job losses from moderate increases is genuinely mixed, and both sides cite it. If you are confident about the effect, it is worth asking how confident the research actually is.
Wording notes: States the possible cost — jobs — inside the proposition, so agreement is agreement with the trade-off and not with a free lunch. Avoids "living wage", which is a campaign term that carries its own answer.
Source or basis: Statutory minimum wage design, and the long-running empirical dispute following Card and Krueger (1994) and the subsequent literature.

eco-1101 · Economy

A country wants to build an industry it does not currently have — advanced chips, batteries, pharmaceuticals. Officials would choose the sectors, direct cheap credit to selected firms, and withdraw support from those that miss export targets.

What should the government do?

Direction — eco-11
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Direct investment into chosen sectors and hold firms to targets. Some industries will not appear on their own, and catching up requires deliberate effort.	The state in the economy -1Nation and the world +0.5Wealth and inequality -0.2
2	Fund research, training and infrastructure that any firm can use, but do not pick which firms or sectors succeed.	The state in the economy -0.2Nation and the world +0.1
3	Keep taxes low and regulation light, and let investors decide where capital goes.	The state in the economy +0.8Wealth and inequality +0.4
4	Buy from whoever makes it best abroad. Building an industry the country has no advantage in wastes the money twice.	The state in the economy +1Nation and the world -0.6Wealth and inequality +0.4
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: The state in the economy (+ Wealth and inequality, Nation and the world)
Opposing value: That officials cannot know which industries will succeed, and that directing credit produces politically protected firms rather than competitive ones.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This separates two positions that both accept private ownership: one holds the state should direct where investment goes, the other that it should not. That difference does not show up on a tax-and-spend question.
Still unsure?: The strongest case for directing investment is the record of several East Asian economies; the strongest case against is the far longer list of countries that tried it and produced protected industries that never became competitive. Which reference class do you think applies?
Wording notes: The first option includes the discipline mechanism — withdrawal of support on missed targets — because industrial policy without it is a different and much weaker proposal. The final option is stated as a serious argument about comparative advantage, not as indifference.
Source or basis: The developmental-state literature on Japan, South Korea and Taiwan, set against the import-substitution record in Latin America and South Asia; and contemporary chip and battery subsidy programmes.

eco-1201 · Economy

A recession has begun. Tax revenue is falling and unemployment is rising. The government can borrow heavily to fund public spending now, or hold spending down to keep the debt from growing.

Which would you choose?

Direction — eco-12
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Hold spending down. Debt taken on now has to be serviced later, and a government that cannot borrow in the next crisis is worse off than one that spent less in this one.	The state in the economy +0.9Wealth and inequality +0.4
2	Borrow and spend. Cutting while demand is already falling deepens the recession, and the lost output is never recovered.	The state in the economy -0.9Wealth and inequality -0.4
3	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: The state in the economy (+ Wealth and inequality)
Opposing value: That government borrowing in a downturn is what prevents a recession becoming a depression, and that debt ratios fall fastest when output grows.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This is the central macroeconomic disagreement of the past century, and it separates traditions that agree closely on tax and ownership.
Still unsure?: Both answers depend on an empirical claim — about how much borrowing costs later, and about how much output is lost now. Notice whether you are reasoning from evidence or from a general disposition toward prudence or activism.
Wording notes: Each option carries its own strongest argument, stated in the terms its advocates use. Restraint is named as a choice about future capacity rather than as caution, so it does not read as the timid option.
Source or basis: The austerity-versus-stimulus argument following the 2008 financial crisis, and the earlier Keynes–Treasury view dispute of the 1930s.

fre-0102 · Individual freedomHandled as sensitive

A speaker plans a public event arguing that a particular community has been bad for the country. No specific threat or call to violence is made. Local groups say the event will inflame tensions; others say it should go ahead.

What should the authorities do?

Direction — fre-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Allow it, and police it. Speech should only be stopped when it calls for violence.	Personal liberty +1
2	Allow it, but require conditions — venue, timing, a right of reply.	Personal liberty +0.35
3	Postpone or relocate it if the risk of unrest is serious.	Personal liberty -0.4
4	Stop it. Speech that targets a community does real harm even without a direct threat.	Personal liberty -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty
Opposing value: Freedom of expression, versus protection from group-directed harm and disorder.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores where you place the limit of protected speech: at incitement, at offence, or at the risk of disorder.
Still unsure?: The community and the speaker are left unnamed on purpose. Try filling them in with a group you sympathise with, then with one you do not. If your answer moves, that is worth noticing.
Wording notes: The community is unspecified so respondents cannot answer on the basis of which group they favour; the reflection makes this test explicit. "No specific threat" is stated so the item measures the offence/disorder boundary and not the incitement boundary.
Source or basis: Article 19(2) of the Constitution of India (reasonable restrictions, public order); Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969) for the incitement standard.

fre-0202 · Individual freedom

Police can solve significantly more serious crimes if they may read private messages without a warrant in urgent cases. The same power will sometimes be used on people who have done nothing wrong.

Which do you prefer?

Direction — fre-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Give police the power. Solving serious crime is worth the intrusion.	Personal liberty -1Power and its limits -0.4
2	Give it, but require a judge to approve it within a short fixed period afterwards.	Personal liberty -0.2Power and its limits +0.3
3	Do not give it. A warrant should be required even when that means some crimes go unsolved.	Personal liberty +1Power and its limits +0.4
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Privacy as a default, versus investigative capacity.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores how much privacy you would give up for security, when both the benefit and the cost are stated plainly.
Still unsure?: Option C accepts that some serious crimes will not be solved. Option A accepts that innocent people will be read. Neither is a free choice.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The security benefit is stated as real ("significantly more") rather than hypothetical, so the pro-privacy answer carries a genuine cost rather than being free.
Source or basis: K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) 10 SCC 1, establishing privacy as a fundamental right in India; Information Technology Act, s.69 interception powers.

fre-0302 · Individual freedomHandled as sensitive

Two adults want to make a private choice about their own lives — whom to marry, what to eat, what to wear in public — that many of their neighbours consider wrong.

The law should leave that choice to them, whatever the neighbours think.

Direction — fre-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Personal liberty +1
2	Agree	Personal liberty +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Personal liberty 0
4	Disagree	Personal liberty -0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Personal liberty -1

Intended dimension: Personal liberty
Opposing value: Individual self-determination in private life, versus shared community standards.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether community disapproval is by itself a reason for the law to step in.
Still unsure?: The examples span very different kinds of choice. If you would answer differently for marriage than for dress, the question is which principle separates them.
Wording notes: Three examples of different weight are given so the item is not carried by one contested case. "Many of their neighbours consider wrong" is used rather than "society disapproves", which would imply consensus.
Source or basis: J.S. Mill, On Liberty (1859), harm principle; Shafin Jahan v. Asokan K.M. (2018) on adult choice in marriage.

fre-0402 · Individual freedom

A social media platform is used to spread false claims about a disease outbreak, and people are refusing treatment as a result.

What should the government be able to do?

Direction — fre-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Order the posts removed and penalise the platform for carrying them.	Personal liberty -1
2	Require the platform to attach corrections, but not to remove anything.	Personal liberty -0.15
3	Publish its own information and rebut the claims, without touching the posts.	Personal liberty +0.6
4	Nothing. Deciding which claims are false is not a power a government should hold.	Personal liberty +1Power and its limits +0.3
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Preventing demonstrable harm, versus refusing the state a power over truth.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you would trust a government with the power to decide what is false, in a case where the falsehood is causing measurable harm.
Still unsure?: The same power, once created, is available to a later government facing a claim it merely finds inconvenient. Does that possibility change your answer?
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. A public-health example is used instead of an electoral one, because election misinformation maps onto partisan sides in a way disease misinformation largely does not.
Source or basis: IT (Intermediary Guidelines) Rules, 2021 (India); WHO guidance on health infodemic management (2020).

fre-0502 · Individual freedomHandled as sensitive

Some argue that certain films, books or artworks should be withdrawn when they offend the deeply held beliefs of a large number of people.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — fre-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Personal liberty -1
2	Agree	Personal liberty -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Personal liberty 0
4	Disagree	Personal liberty +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Personal liberty +1

Intended dimension: Personal liberty
Opposing value: Artistic and intellectual freedom, versus respect for deeply held belief.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether the number of people offended, and the depth of the belief, should determine what may be published.
Still unsure?: The belief in question is left open — religious, political or national. Whichever one you pictured, the rule you choose would apply to all the others too.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Kept general across religious, political and national sentiment; naming a single controversy would make this an item about that controversy rather than about the principle.
Source or basis: Sections 95–96 CrPC (forfeiture of publications, India); UNESCO reporting on artistic freedom.

fre-0602 · Individual freedom

A city wants to install cameras with automatic face recognition across all public spaces. Officials say it will reduce street crime and help find missing people.

What is your view?

Direction — fre-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Do not install it. Being identified everywhere you go changes public life for the worse.	Personal liberty +1
2	Only with strict limits — narrow purposes, short data retention, independent audit.	Personal liberty +0.35Power and its limits +0.3
3	Install it in high-crime areas and transport hubs.	Personal liberty -0.5
4	Install it everywhere. People with nothing to hide lose nothing.	Personal liberty -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Anonymity in public, versus the security value of identification.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether privacy in public places is something you value, separately from privacy at home.
Still unsure?: Ask what you would want if the system worked exactly as promised, and then what you would want if it misidentified people at a small but steady rate.
Wording notes: Option D reproduces the common "nothing to hide" argument in its ordinary form; it is included because it is genuinely held, and it is not caricatured. The reflection introduces the error-rate consideration for both directions.
Source or basis: Delhi Police automated facial recognition deployment reporting; EU AI Act (2024) provisions on remote biometric identification.

fre-0702 · Individual freedom

A protest march blocks a major road for several days. It is peaceful, but it prevents thousands of people from getting to work and disrupts a hospital route.

What should the authorities do?

Direction — fre-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Leave it. Protest that causes no disruption tends to be ignored, and that is the point of the right.	Personal liberty +1
2	Negotiate a location that keeps the protest visible but clears the hospital route.	Personal liberty +0.2
3	Clear the road. The right to protest does not extend to shutting down other people’s lives.	Personal liberty -1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty
Opposing value: The right to assemble and disrupt, versus third parties’ freedom of movement.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether the right to protest includes the right to impose costs on people who are not party to the dispute.
Still unsure?: The cause of the protest is not stated. Most people find their answer shifts depending on whether they agree with the protesters — which is itself worth knowing.
Wording notes: The protest’s cause is withheld so that the item measures the principle rather than sympathy. The hospital route is included so that option A carries a genuine cost.
Source or basis: Amit Sahni v. Commissioner of Police (2020) on occupation of public ways in India; Article 19(1)(b) assembly rights.

fre-0802 · Individual freedom

A country is reviewing its drug laws. Possession of small quantities for personal use currently carries a prison sentence, and the prisons are full of people serving them.

What should the law do?

Direction — fre-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Keep the criminal penalties. The prohibition is part of what keeps use down, and weakening it signals that the harm is acceptable.	Personal liberty -1Crime and punishment -0.6
2	Keep possession an offence but replace prison with fines and mandatory treatment.	Personal liberty -0.2Crime and punishment +0.3
3	Remove criminal penalties for possession, while keeping supply and trafficking illegal.	Personal liberty +0.6Crime and punishment +0.7
4	Legalise and regulate supply as well, so that quality is controlled and the trade is taxed rather than run by criminals.	Personal liberty +1Crime and punishment +0.8The state in the economy +0.2
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ The state in the economy, Crime and punishment)
Opposing value: That some conduct is harmful enough that the law should discourage it regardless of whether the harm falls mainly on the person choosing it.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This asks whether the law should restrain conduct that mainly harms the person doing it, and what the criminal system is for when it does.
Still unsure?: Consider whether your answer would change for a substance that is currently legal — alcohol, tobacco — and if so, what makes the difference.
Wording notes: The four options are distinct legal regimes that all exist somewhere, not a slope from strict to lax. Naming the overcrowded prisons in the context is a real cost of the status quo and is stated because the alternatives’ costs are stated too. Avoids naming any particular substance, which would import separate intuitions.
Source or basis: The four regimes correspond to prohibition, the Portuguese decriminalisation model, partial decriminalisation, and regulated legal markets as operated for cannabis in several jurisdictions.

fre-0902 · Individual freedomHandled as sensitive

Some argue that an adult with a terminal illness, of sound mind and acting on a settled decision, should be able to ask a doctor for help to end their life.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — fre-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Personal liberty +1Tradition and change +0.4
2	Agree	Personal liberty +0.5Tradition and change +0.2
3	Neutral or unsure	Personal liberty 0
4	Disagree	Personal liberty -0.5Tradition and change -0.2
5	Strongly disagree	Personal liberty -1Tradition and change -0.4

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Tradition and change)
Opposing value: That protecting life is a duty the law should not delegate, and that a permission of this kind puts quiet pressure on the vulnerable.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This tests how far personal autonomy extends when the choice is irreversible, and whether the state should stand between a person and a decision about their own death.
Still unsure?: The strongest argument against is not about the person deciding but about everyone else — that a right to die can become a felt duty to die for people who are expensive to care for. Does that change your answer?
Wording notes: The conditions are stated tightly — terminal, sound mind, settled decision — because a vaguer version would be answered as a question about safeguards rather than about the principle. The reflection carries the strongest opposing argument so the item is not one-sided.
Source or basis: Assisted-dying statutes in the Netherlands, Belgium, Canada, Spain and several US states, and the parliamentary debates in jurisdictions that have rejected them.

fre-1002 · Individual freedom

Some argue that the state should require people to take precautions for their own safety — seatbelts, helmets, vaccination against contagious disease — and penalise those who refuse.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — fre-10
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Personal liberty -1
2	Agree	Personal liberty -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Personal liberty 0
4	Disagree	Personal liberty +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Personal liberty +1

Intended dimension: Personal liberty
Opposing value: That adults are entitled to run their own risks, and that a state which may compel this may compel a great deal more.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Where the harm falls mainly on the person choosing, compulsion has to be justified differently than where it falls on others. This measures how much weight you give that distinction.
Still unsure?: The three examples are not identical: refusing a helmet risks mainly yourself, refusing vaccination affects people who cannot be vaccinated. If your answer differs between them, that difference is the interesting part.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded so that agreement points toward collective order, offsetting the freedom items where agreement points the other way. The three examples deliberately span pure self-harm to clear third-party effect, and the reflection points that out rather than hiding it.
Source or basis: Standard cases in the literature on legal paternalism, and the compulsory-vaccination statutes debated in most countries after 2020.

gov-0103 · Government and power

Some argue that a country makes better progress when a leader can act decisively without having to work through courts, committees and coalition partners at every step.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — gov-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly disagree	Power and its limits +1
2	Disagree	Power and its limits +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Power and its limits 0
4	Agree	Power and its limits -0.5
5	Strongly agree	Power and its limits -1

Intended dimension: Power and its limits
Opposing value: Decisive capacity to act, versus dispersed and checkable power.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how you weigh speed of decision-making against the number of people who can stop a decision.
Still unsure?: Procedures that slow down a government you dislike are the same procedures that slow down one you support. Which cost feels heavier to you?
Wording notes: The pro-executive position is stated in its strongest ordinary form ("better progress") rather than as a slippery-slope. No leader, country or party is named.
Source or basis: Comparative literature on executive aggrandisement; e.g. Levitsky and Ziblatt, How Democracies Die (2018), and defences of decisive government in developmental-state scholarship.

gov-0203 · Government and powerHandled as sensitive

During a serious emergency — a war, an epidemic, a major disaster — a government wants powers to detain people, restrict movement and suspend some legal procedures.

What should be allowed?

Direction — gov-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Broad powers for as long as the government judges the emergency to last.	Power and its limits -1Personal liberty -0.5
2	Broad powers, but expiring automatically unless the legislature renews them.	Power and its limits +0.4
3	Narrow powers only, with courts able to review every individual case throughout.	Power and its limits +1Personal liberty +0.5
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ Personal liberty)
Opposing value: Capacity to respond to crisis, versus limits that hold under pressure.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Emergencies are where constitutional limits are tested. This explores whether you think limits should bind hardest exactly when they are most inconvenient.
Still unsure?: Emergency powers have both saved lives and been used long after the emergency passed. Any rule you choose has to cope with both possibilities.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection names both failure modes symmetrically and does not allude to any particular national episode.
Source or basis: Articles 352–360, Constitution of India; ICCPR Article 4 on derogation in public emergencies.

gov-0303 · Government and power

A national government and a state government disagree sharply over a policy that mainly affects that state — say, its schools or its farmland.

Whose decision should stand?

Direction — gov-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The state’s. Decisions should be made as close as possible to the people they affect.	Power and its limits +1
2	The state’s, unless the policy clearly spills over into other states.	Power and its limits +0.5
3	The national government’s, since one country should not have policies pulling in different directions.	Power and its limits -0.6Nation and the world +0.3
4	The national government’s in all cases. It answers to the whole country.	Power and its limits -1Nation and the world +0.4
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ Nation and the world)
Opposing value: Local self-government, versus national uniformity.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think power should sit at the centre or be dispersed across levels of government.
Still unsure?: Decentralisation lets a region protect a policy the centre would remove — and equally lets it keep one the centre would abolish. Both happen.
Wording notes: Policy examples are chosen to be low-salience (schools, farmland) rather than an active centre–state flashpoint, so the item measures the federal principle rather than one dispute.
Source or basis: Seventh Schedule, Constitution of India (Union, State and Concurrent Lists); Sarkaria Commission Report on Centre–State Relations (1988).

gov-0403 · Government and powerHandled as sensitive

A proposal would let police detain a person for up to a month without charge if they are suspected of planning a serious attack.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — gov-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly support	Personal liberty -1Power and its limits -0.4
2	Support	Personal liberty -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Personal liberty 0
4	Oppose	Personal liberty +0.5
5	Strongly oppose	Personal liberty +1Power and its limits +0.4

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Preventive security, versus the presumption of innocence.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you would accept detention without charge as a preventive tool, and if so on what scale.
Still unsure?: Preventive detention can stop an attack that has not happened yet. It also holds people against whom nothing has been proved. Both statements are true at once.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. A concrete duration is given so that "support" means something specific rather than approving of security in general. No group is identified as the suspected party.
Source or basis: Article 22, Constitution of India (preventive detention safeguards); Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act custody provisions.

gov-0503 · Government and power

A court strikes down a law that the elected legislature passed by a large majority, holding that it violates the constitution.

What is your view?

Direction — gov-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The legislature should be able to override the court. Elected representatives, not judges, should have the last word.	Power and its limits -1
2	The court should be able to delay a law, but a large enough majority should be able to proceed anyway.	Power and its limits -0.35
3	The court’s ruling should stand. A majority is not entitled to do anything it likes.	Power and its limits +1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits
Opposing value: Majority rule, versus entrenched constitutional limits.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores the tension between majority rule and constitutional limits — two things usually both described as "democratic".
Still unsure?: Unelected judges overruling elected representatives is a real democratic cost. So is a majority removing a protection that a minority depends on. The question is which risk you would rather run.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The law’s content is unstated, since naming it would make the answer track agreement with that law rather than the underlying principle.
Source or basis: Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973), basic structure doctrine; Waldron, "The Core of the Case Against Judicial Review" (2006), for the opposing view.

gov-0603 · Government and power

A government wants every citizen to be registered in a single digital identity system, used for benefits, banking, travel and health records.

What is your view?

Direction — gov-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Do not build it. One system linking everything gives whoever controls it too much power.	Personal liberty +1
2	Build it, but keep it voluntary and keep the databases separate.	Personal liberty +0.4
3	Build it and make it standard, with legal limits on how the data is used.	Personal liberty -0.4
4	Build it and require it. It reduces fraud and gets services to people who currently miss out.	Personal liberty -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty
Opposing value: Effective public administration, versus dispersed control of personal data.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how you weigh the administrative benefits of a unified identity system against the concentration of information it creates.
Still unsure?: Such systems have measurably improved delivery of benefits to people who were previously left out, and have also excluded people when the technology failed. Both outcomes are documented.
Wording notes: Both the documented benefit and the documented failure mode are given equal space in the reflection. The system is described generically rather than named.
Source or basis: Aadhaar (Targeted Delivery of Financial and Other Subsidies) Act, 2016; Puttaswamy (Aadhaar) judgment, 2018; Reetika Khera (ed.), Dissent on Aadhaar (2019).

gov-0703 · Government and power

Some argue that when a government provides a service directly — running schools, hospitals or transport — it tends to do it worse and more expensively than a contracted private provider would.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — gov-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly disagree	The state in the economy -1
2	Disagree	The state in the economy -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	The state in the economy 0
4	Agree	The state in the economy +0.5
5	Strongly agree	The state in the economy +1

Intended dimension: The state in the economy
Opposing value: Confidence in public delivery, versus confidence in contracted provision.
Weight: 0.8
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This is a question about state capacity — whether you think governments are generally capable of delivering services well.
Still unsure?: Your answer may depend on which government you have dealt with. That is a legitimate basis for a view, but it is worth separating from a claim about governments in general.
Wording notes: This is an empirical belief rather than a value, and is weighted lower for that reason. It is included because it strongly predicts which economic instruments a person will accept.
Source or basis: Comparative public-administration literature on contracting out; Hood, "A Public Management for All Seasons?" (1991), and critiques thereof.

gov-0803 · Government and power

Public contracts are awarded slowly because every stage is checked, documented and open to challenge. A reform would let officials decide faster with fewer checks. Projects would finish sooner, and some money would be taken.

Which would you choose?

Direction — gov-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Keep the checks. A process that can be audited and challenged is what stops public money becoming private money, even when it is slow.	Power and its limits +0.9The state in the economy -0.2
2	Speed it up. Delay has costs too — hospitals unbuilt, roads unfinished — and some leakage is the price of getting things done.	Power and its limits -0.9The state in the economy +0.2
3	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: That accountability procedures accumulate until the state cannot act, and that the cost of paralysis is paid by the people waiting for what it cannot deliver.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Procedural constraint is usually argued in the abstract. Here it has a stated price on both sides, which is where people find out what they actually think.
Still unsure?: Notice that both options accept a real loss: one accepts unbuilt infrastructure, the other accepts theft. If neither felt like a loss, the question was probably answered as a slogan.
Wording notes: States corruption as a consequence of the fast option without using a loaded word for it, and states delay as a consequence of the slow one. Neither is described as the responsible choice.
Source or basis: Public procurement reform debates in India, Brazil and the European Union, where the speed-versus-oversight trade-off is argued explicitly.

soc-0104 · Society and cultureHandled as sensitive

A long-standing custom in a community assigns different roles to men and women within the family. Some members value it and want it left alone; others within the same community want it changed.

What should happen?

Direction — soc-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The law should require equal treatment, even where the community objects.	Tradition and change +1
2	The state should support those who want change, without compelling the community.	Tradition and change +0.45
3	It should be left to the community to change at its own pace.	Tradition and change -0.5
4	The custom should be respected. Long-standing family arrangements hold communities together.	Tradition and change -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change
Opposing value: Equal legal treatment, versus community self-determination and continuity.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think law should override settled social custom in the name of equal treatment.
Still unsure?: The disagreement here is inside the community, not between the community and outsiders. That makes "leave it to them" harder than it first sounds — some of them want it changed.
Wording notes: No religion or community is named. The traditional option gives a positive reason (cohesion) rather than being left as a bare refusal, which would make it read as indefensible.
Source or basis: Article 25 read with Articles 14–15, Constitution of India; the constitutional debate over reform of personal law.

soc-0204 · Society and culture

Some argue that when a society changes its customs quickly, it loses something valuable that took generations to build and cannot easily be rebuilt.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — soc-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Tradition and change -1
2	Agree	Tradition and change -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Tradition and change 0
4	Disagree	Tradition and change +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Tradition and change +1

Intended dimension: Tradition and change
Opposing value: Inherited wisdom in institutions, versus the case for deliberate reform.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you treat the age of a social arrangement as evidence that it is worth keeping.
Still unsure?: This cuts both ways depending on the custom. The question is whether you think age is evidence in general, not whether it is evidence for the customs you happen to like.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. This is Burke’s argument stated in its own terms, without either endorsement or the word "conservative".
Source or basis: Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790).

soc-0304 · Society and cultureHandled as sensitive

A group has been disadvantaged for generations and remains underrepresented in universities and good jobs. A proposal would reserve a share of places for its members.

What is your view?

Direction — soc-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Reserve places, and keep doing so until the gap actually closes.	Tradition and change +1
2	Reserve places, but review the policy periodically against measured results.	Tradition and change +0.5
3	Address it through schooling and income support instead, without reserving places.	Tradition and change -0.4
4	Selection should go strictly on individual merit, whatever the resulting composition.	Tradition and change -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change
Opposing value: Group-level remedy for inherited disadvantage, versus individual assessment.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think group-level disadvantage justifies group-level remedies, or whether policy should address individuals only.
Still unsure?: Option C accepts the disadvantage is real but disputes the remedy. Option D disputes that group composition is the right thing to measure at all. Those are different objections, and it is worth knowing which is yours.
Wording notes: No specific group is named, so this reads the same for a user thinking of caste, race, religion or region. Both "merit" and "disadvantage" are stated without scare quotes. Option C exists so that opposing reservation is not conflated with denying the disadvantage.
Source or basis: Articles 15(4) and 16(4), Constitution of India; Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992); comparative affirmative-action literature.

soc-0404 · Society and cultureHandled as sensitive

Some argue that schools should teach children about the range of family arrangements and identities that exist in society today.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — soc-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly support	Tradition and change +1
2	Support	Tradition and change +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Tradition and change 0
4	Oppose	Tradition and change -0.5
5	Strongly oppose	Tradition and change -1

Intended dimension: Tradition and change
Opposing value: Public education about social diversity, versus parental authority over upbringing.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores who you think should decide what children learn about social norms — the school system, or the family.
Still unsure?: Supporters see it as describing the society children already live in. Opponents see it as the state taking a decision that belongs to parents. Both are arguments about authority, not only about content.
Wording notes: Phrased descriptively ("the range that exists") rather than evaluatively ("acceptance of"), so opposing it is not made to entail denying that such families exist. The reflection reframes both sides as claims about who decides.
Source or basis: National Curriculum Framework debates on inclusive education (India); comparative disputes over school curricula and parental rights.

soc-0504 · Society and culture

A rapidly growing city is redeveloping an old neighbourhood. The plan would bring better housing and jobs, but would break up a settled community with generations of shared history in that place.

What should carry more weight?

Direction — soc-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The community. What people have built together over generations is not replaceable with better buildings.	Tradition and change -1
2	Redevelop, but rehouse the community together and on the same site.	Tradition and change +0.2
3	The redevelopment. Better housing and jobs improve more lives than continuity does.	Tradition and change +1Environment and growth -0.2
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change (+ Environment and growth)
Opposing value: Rootedness and continuity of place, versus material improvement through change.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This tests attachment to continuity in a case where the traditional answer is not the conservative political one — it is the community holding out against development.
Still unsure?: The people who most want the redevelopment are often the ones living in the worst housing. The people who most want to stay are often the ones with the deepest roots. They may be neighbours.
Wording notes: Deliberately decouples "traditional" from "right-wing": here continuity opposes a development project. Included specifically to stop the social axis collapsing into a partisan proxy.
Source or basis: Urban redevelopment and resettlement literature; Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Act, 2013 (India).

soc-0604 · Society and cultureHandled as sensitive

A private club, a religious body and a family business each want to set their own rules on who they admit, employ or serve — rules that would exclude some people.

How far should the law reach?

Direction — soc-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Private bodies should set their own rules. Freedom of association includes the freedom not to associate.	Tradition and change -1Personal liberty +0.4
2	Anti-discrimination law should cover employment and public-facing services, but not private membership.	Tradition and change +0.35
3	Anti-discrimination law should cover all of them. Exclusion does the same damage whoever does it.	Tradition and change +1Personal liberty -0.4
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change (+ Personal liberty)
Opposing value: Freedom of association, versus freedom from exclusion.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores where private freedom of association ends and public obligation begins — a boundary that liberty and equality both have claims on.
Still unsure?: This is one of the few questions where two values many people hold at once — freedom of association and equal treatment — point in opposite directions and cannot both be fully satisfied.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded, and cross-loaded onto liberty, because the association position is genuinely a liberty claim as well as a traditional one. Excluded groups are unnamed.
Source or basis: Article 19(1)(c), Constitution of India; Civil Rights Act 1964 Title II (US) and its public accommodation debate.

soc-0704 · Society and culture

Some argue that a society should judge itself mainly by how its worst-off members are doing, rather than by its overall achievements.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — soc-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Tradition and change +1Wealth and inequality -0.4
2	Agree	Tradition and change +0.5Wealth and inequality -0.2
3	Neutral or unsure	Tradition and change 0
4	Disagree	Tradition and change -0.5Wealth and inequality +0.2
5	Strongly disagree	Tradition and change -1Wealth and inequality +0.4

Intended dimension: Tradition and change (+ Wealth and inequality)
Opposing value: Priority to the worst off, versus aggregate achievement.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores which yardstick you use to judge a society: the position of those at the bottom, or what it achieves overall.
Still unsure?: Disagreeing does not mean not caring about the worst off — it may mean thinking that scientific, cultural or economic achievement counts independently.
Wording notes: The reflection explicitly blocks the reading that disagreement equals callousness — without which this item would function as a social-desirability trap.
Source or basis: Rawls, A Theory of Justice (1971), the difference principle; Sen, The Idea of Justice (2009); and perfectionist objections to both.

soc-0804 · Society and cultureHandled as sensitive

A country is setting the law on ending a pregnancy. Some hold that the decision belongs to the pregnant woman; others hold that a developing life has claims the law must weigh; most people place a limit somewhere between the two.

Where should the law be drawn?

Direction — soc-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Permitted only where the woman’s life is at risk, and not otherwise.	Tradition and change -1Personal liberty -0.6Religion and the state +0.6
2	Permitted in early pregnancy and in defined circumstances after that, with medical approval required.	Tradition and change -0.3Personal liberty -0.15Religion and the state +0.2
3	Permitted on request up to a set point in pregnancy, and on medical grounds after it.	Tradition and change +0.5Personal liberty +0.4Religion and the state -0.3
4	Treated as a medical decision between a woman and her doctor, without a legal threshold.	Tradition and change +1Personal liberty +0.8Religion and the state -0.6
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change (+ Personal liberty, Religion and the state)
Opposing value: That a developing life has moral claims the law must recognise, weighed against a woman’s authority over her own body.
Weight: 1.2
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This is one of the few questions where views on bodily autonomy, inherited moral teaching and the reach of law all bear on a single decision, which is why it separates traditions that otherwise look alike.
Still unsure?: Both sides of this argument hold that someone vulnerable needs protection. They disagree about who that is. Try stating the case you disagree with in a form its holders would accept.
Wording notes: Deliberately avoids "pro-life" and "pro-choice", both of which are movement labels that frame the answer. The context names the strongest version of each position rather than describing one as an exception to the other. The four options run continuously rather than presenting two poles, because most people hold a threshold view and a binary would force them to misreport.
Source or basis: Gestational-limit statutes across jurisdictions, which cluster around the options offered here; the range covers the law as it stands in most countries rather than any single national settlement.

soc-0904 · Society and culture

Some argue that marriage in law should keep the definition it has held historically — between a man and a woman — and that other relationships should be recognised, if at all, under a different name.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — soc-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Tradition and change -1
2	Agree	Tradition and change -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Tradition and change 0
4	Disagree	Tradition and change +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Tradition and change +1

Intended dimension: Tradition and change
Opposing value: That two adults should be able to marry on the same legal terms as anyone else, with the same rights over property, children and medical decisions.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Marriage law is where a society decides which relationships it will recognise, so this measures whether inherited definitions should hold or be revised.
Still unsure?: Consider whether your answer rests on what marriage has meant historically, on what it does for the people in it, or on a religious understanding of it — and whether those three point the same way for you.
Wording notes: Deliberately puts the continuity position as the statement rather than the reform position, because three of the four social scale items already point the other way and agreement bias would otherwise be scored as a political view. Names the alternative recognition explicitly so the item is not a bare yes-or-no on whether such relationships exist in law.
Source or basis: The legal question settled by statute or judgment in over thirty countries since 2001, and still contested in many others.

soc-1004 · Society and culture

A government can fund one of two things with the same money: paid leave and subsidised childcare so that both parents can return to work, or a direct payment to any household with a young child, which many would use to have one parent stay at home.

Which would you choose?

Direction — soc-10
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The direct payment. Families should decide for themselves how to raise young children, and many will choose a parent at home.	Tradition and change +0.9Wealth and inequality -0.3
2	The leave and childcare. Keeping both parents attached to work matters for their earnings and independence over a lifetime.	Tradition and change -0.9Wealth and inequality -0.3The state in the economy -0.3
3	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change (+ Wealth and inequality, The state in the economy)
Opposing value: That the state should not tilt families toward one arrangement, and that time spent raising a child is work in its own right.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Both options spend the same public money on the same families. The difference is whether policy should be neutral between household arrangements or should actively support two earners.
Still unsure?: This is one of the few social questions where the cost is identical on both sides. If your answer changed when you noticed that, it is worth asking which consideration was actually doing the work.
Wording notes: Both options are stated as positive choices with a reason, and the money is held constant so neither can be read as the cheaper or more generous one. Avoids "working mothers", which would narrow a question that applies to both parents.
Source or basis: The live design choice between Nordic-style shared parental leave with public childcare and the child-allowance model used in several central European countries.

nat-0105 · Nation and identity

Some argue that a government’s first duty is to its own citizens, and that obligations to people in other countries come after that duty is fully met.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — nat-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world +1
2	Agree	Nation and the world +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Nation and the world 0
4	Disagree	Nation and the world -0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world -1

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Special duties to co-citizens, versus obligations owed to everyone.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think moral obligations stop, or merely weaken, at a national border.
Still unsure?: Almost everyone accepts some special duty to fellow citizens — the disagreement is about how strong it is and what it outweighs.
Wording notes: States the nationalist position neutrally and reasonably. The reflection notes that the disagreement is one of degree, which discourages performative answers at either extreme.
Source or basis: Debate between cosmopolitan and statist theories of justice; Singer, "Famine, Affluence and Morality" (1972); Miller, On Nationality (1995).

nat-0205 · Nation and identityHandled as sensitive

Within a country, a region has a significant movement demanding either much greater autonomy or full independence. Some people in the region support it; others in the same region strongly oppose it.

What should the national government prioritise?

Direction — nat-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Maintaining the country’s territorial integrity, since borders cannot be reopened every time a movement forms.	Nation and the world +1
2	Keeping the region within the country, while negotiating greater self-government for it.	Nation and the world +0.3
3	Establishing what the region’s residents actually want through a fair and verifiable process, and acting on the result.	Nation and the world -0.6Power and its limits +0.4
4	The right of the region’s people to decide their own political status, including separation.	Nation and the world -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Territorial integrity of the state, versus self-determination of a people.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how you weigh territorial integrity against self-determination when a population is itself divided.
Still unsure?: Note that the region is described as internally divided, which is usually the case. Whichever principle you pick will override the preferences of a substantial number of the people who live there.
Wording notes: Written to the brief’s explicit standard. No region, country or movement is named; no side is described as separatist, militant, patriotic or oppressed; and the internal division is stated so neither answer can claim to simply follow "what the people want".
Source or basis: Comparative practice on autonomy and secession: Canadian Supreme Court, Reference re Secession of Quebec (1998); UN Charter Article 1(2) on self-determination alongside Article 2(4) on territorial integrity.

nat-0305 · Nation and identityHandled as sensitive

A country is deciding how many people to admit from abroad to live and work there permanently. Employers want more; some residents want fewer.

What should the policy be?

Direction — nat-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Open the borders substantially. People should be broadly free to move where they can build a life.	Nation and the world -1
2	Admit a substantial number, prioritising those fleeing danger and those with needed skills.	Nation and the world -0.4
3	Admit a limited number, set by what public services and housing can absorb.	Nation and the world +0.5
4	Admit very few. A country should be able to decide its own composition and pace of change.	Nation and the world +1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Freedom of movement, versus a settled population’s control over admission.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you see admission to a country as something outsiders have a claim on, or something the existing population decides.
Still unsure?: Both the economic case for more migration and the pressure on housing and services are measurable, and they can both be true in the same country at the same time.
Wording notes: No nationality or religion of migrants is specified. Option D gives the restrictionist position its non-derogatory form ("decide its own composition and pace of change") rather than a version built out of hostility.
Source or basis: OECD International Migration Outlook; UK Migration Advisory Committee reports; comparative literature on public services and migration.

nat-0405 · Nation and identityHandled as sensitive

Some argue that people who settle in a country should be free to keep their own language and customs, and that public institutions should adapt to include them rather than expecting them to fit in.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — nat-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world -1Tradition and change +0.3
2	Agree	Nation and the world -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Nation and the world 0
4	Disagree	Nation and the world +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world +1Tradition and change -0.3

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Tradition and change)
Opposing value: A common public culture, versus recognition of plural ways of life.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think a shared public culture is something a country may expect of newcomers, or whether public institutions should adapt to difference instead.
Still unsure?: This question is about what is expected, not about what is compelled. It may be worth asking yourself separately what, if anything, you would be willing to enforce by law.
Wording notes: The statement is written so that agreeing with it is the pluralist answer, not the nationalist one. Five of the six scale items touching this axis previously ran the other way, which would have let simple agreement bias accumulate as nationalism. Uses "free to keep" and "expecting" rather than the language of legal requirement; the reflection flags that distinction rather than resolving it.
Source or basis: Kymlicka, Multicultural Citizenship (1995); Republican integration models in French policy documents; Parekh Report (UK, 2000).

nat-0505 · Nation and identity

An international body proposes a binding rule that would benefit most member countries overall, but would require this country to change a policy its own government and voters currently support.

What should the country do?

Direction — nat-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Refuse. No outside body should be able to override what a country has decided for itself.	Nation and the world +1
2	Negotiate an exemption while staying in the body.	Nation and the world +0.4
3	Accept it. Shared rules only work if countries follow them when it is inconvenient.	Nation and the world -1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: National sovereignty, versus the effectiveness of shared institutions.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how much independent decision-making you would trade for the benefits of binding international cooperation.
Still unsure?: The rule is stipulated to be genuinely beneficial overall, and the domestic policy is stipulated to be genuinely popular. Neither side is a mistake here.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Both the collective benefit and the democratic mandate are stipulated as real, so neither answer can be dismissed as based on a false premise.
Source or basis: WTO dispute settlement compliance record; literature on sovereignty costs in international agreements.

nat-0605 · Nation and identity

Some argue that schools should teach a country’s history plainly, including the episodes that reflect badly on it, rather than presenting it in a way designed to encourage pride.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — nat-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world -1
2	Agree	Nation and the world -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Nation and the world 0
4	Disagree	Nation and the world +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world +1

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Cultivated patriotism as social glue, versus an unvarnished public account of the past.
Weight: 0.8
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you see cultivating shared national feeling as a legitimate purpose of public education, or whether that should give way to an unvarnished account.
Still unsure?: Those who disagree point to solidarity and a willingness to contribute to shared undertakings, which national feeling does seem to support. Those who agree point to the difficulty of teaching pride and honest history at the same time. Neither concern is unreasonable.
Wording notes: Written so that agreement is the non-nationalist answer, counterbalancing nat-01 and for-03 where agreement is the nationalist one. Patriotism is given a stated benefit in the reflection rather than being left as the position with no argument, and the critical-history position is given a practical difficulty rather than a moral claim. This item measures affective nationalism separately from policy nationalism (nat-01, nat-05).
Source or basis: Literature on civic education and national identity; comparative curriculum policy on national history teaching.

nat-0705 · Nation and identityHandled as sensitive

A country is deciding what its national identity should officially rest on.

Which comes closest to your view?

Direction — nat-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	A shared history, language and culture that most of its people have inherited.	Tradition and change -1Nation and the world +0.5
2	A shared culture, but one open to anyone willing to take part in it.	Tradition and change -0.2Nation and the world +0.3
3	A shared commitment to the constitution and to equal citizenship, whatever one’s background.	Tradition and change +0.8Nation and the world -0.2
4	Nothing in particular. A state should administer a territory without cultivating an identity at all.	Tradition and change +0.4Nation and the world -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Tradition and change (+ Nation and the world)
Opposing value: Inherited cultural nationhood, versus civic nationhood based on shared political commitment.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This distinguishes between identity based on inherited culture and identity based on shared political commitments — a distinction that cuts across left and right.
Still unsure?: Option A and option C are both forms of national belonging; they differ over what makes someone a full member, not over whether membership matters.
Wording notes: Scores primarily on the social axis, since ethnic and civic nationalism differ mainly over inherited versus chosen belonging rather than over the strength of national feeling. The reflection blocks the misreading that option A is simply "more nationalist" than option C.
Source or basis: Distinction developed in Hans Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism (1944), and refined in later scholarship; Constituent Assembly Debates on citizenship (India, 1949).

nat-0805 · Nation and identity

A country has many languages. The government must decide what children are taught in, and what the administration and courts operate in.

What should the policy be?

Direction — nat-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	One national language for schools, administration and courts. A shared language is what allows a country to function as one.	Nation and the world +1Tradition and change -0.5Personal liberty -0.3
2	A national language everywhere, with regional languages used alongside it in early schooling.	Nation and the world +0.4Tradition and change -0.15
3	Regional languages for schooling and local administration, with a link language for national business.	Nation and the world -0.4Tradition and change +0.3
4	Full official status for each major language, including in national institutions, whatever that costs to administer.	Nation and the world -1Tradition and change +0.5Personal liberty +0.3
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Personal liberty, Tradition and change)
Opposing value: That a common language is the practical condition of a shared civic life, and that multiplying official languages entrenches division and cost.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Language policy decides who can reach the state without an intermediary, which makes it one of the most consequential questions a plural country settles.
Still unsure?: Consider the answer from the position of someone whose first language would not be the national one. Then consider it from the position of someone who has to move across the country for work.
Wording notes: Names no actual language, so the item is not answered as a question about a specific group. Costs appear on both sides: the single-language option is stated as enabling function, the multilingual one names the administrative burden.
Source or basis: Official language settlements in India, Belgium, Canada, Switzerland, South Africa and Spain, which between them cover the range of options offered.

nat-0905 · Nation and identity

Several hundred thousand people have lived and worked in a country for over a decade without legal status. They pay rent, their children were born and schooled there, and they have no right to remain.

What should happen?

Direction — nat-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Offer a route to legal residence for those with long residence and no serious offences.	Nation and the world -1Tradition and change +0.4
2	Regularise those with children born in the country, and require the rest to apply from abroad.	Nation and the world -0.35Tradition and change +0.15
3	Allow them to remain and work without a path to citizenship, so that entering unlawfully does not lead to it.	Nation and the world +0.4
4	Enforce removal. Rewarding unlawful entry after the fact guarantees that it continues.	Nation and the world +1Personal liberty -0.3
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Personal liberty, Tradition and change)
Opposing value: That a state which does not enforce its own entry rules cannot control who enters at all, and that amnesties reliably produce the next cohort.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This separates views about the border from views about the people already inside it, which are often assumed to move together and frequently do not.
Still unsure?: The enforcement argument is about future entrants; the regularisation argument is about people already settled. Both can be right at once. If they conflict for you, which takes priority?
Wording notes: The context supplies the facts both sides emphasise — long residence and children on one hand, absence of legal right on the other — without characterising the people involved. Avoids "illegal" as a description of persons.
Source or basis: Regularisation programmes in Spain, Italy and the United States, and the enforcement-first position taken in several current national debates.

rel-0106 · Religion and the stateHandled as sensitive

A government is deciding whether official ceremonies — swearing in a leader, opening a public building — should include religious rituals.

What should the practice be?

Direction — rel-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	No religious content at all. Official acts should be equally recognisable to everyone.	Religion and the state -1
2	No religious content in the ceremony itself, but officials may follow their own practices privately.	Religion and the state -0.45
3	Include rituals from several traditions, so that many communities see themselves represented.	Religion and the state +0.4
4	Include the rituals that most people in the country actually observe.	Religion and the state +1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Religion and the state
Opposing value: A state that abstains from religion, versus one that reflects the religions of its people.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores which model of secularism you prefer: a state that keeps religion out of public acts, or one that includes many religions in them.
Still unsure?: Options A and C are both called secularism, in different countries. One means the state stands apart from all religions; the other means it stands equally close to all of them.
Wording notes: The two distinct traditions of secularism — French laïcité and the Indian "principled distance" model — are presented as genuine alternatives rather than as more and less secular. No faith is named.
Source or basis: Bhargava, "What is Indian Secularism and What is it For?" (1998); French law of 1905 on the separation of church and state.

rel-0206 · Religion and the stateHandled as sensitive

In a country where different religious communities follow different rules on marriage, divorce and inheritance, a proposal would replace them with one law applying to everyone.

What is your view?

Direction — rel-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Keep community-based laws. Religious communities should govern their own family matters.	Religion and the state +1
2	Keep them, but require each to meet a common standard of equal rights.	Religion and the state +0.2Tradition and change +0.3
3	Offer one common law that anyone may opt into, alongside the existing ones.	Religion and the state -0.4Personal liberty +0.3
4	Replace them with one law for everyone. Rights should not depend on which community a person belongs to.	Religion and the state -1Tradition and change +0.3
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Religion and the state (+ Personal liberty, Tradition and change)
Opposing value: Uniform legal rights across communities, versus community control of religious practice.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether family law should be uniform across a country, or should follow the traditions of each community.
Still unsure?: This question is argued from several directions at once: as equal citizenship, as religious freedom, as women’s rights, and as majority imposition. Which of those framings you find strongest is the real content of your answer.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. No community is named as the one whose laws would change, and the reflection lists all four live framings without ranking them — necessary because in India this question is strongly associated with one political position, which would otherwise contaminate the measurement.
Source or basis: Article 44, Constitution of India (directive principle on a uniform civil code); Law Commission of India Consultation Paper on Family Law Reform (2018), which recommended reform of personal laws rather than a uniform code.

rel-0306 · Religion and the state

Some argue that when a lawmaker votes on a moral question — the end of life, marriage, the beginning of life — they should set their religious beliefs aside and decide on reasons anyone could accept.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — rel-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Religion and the state -1
2	Agree	Religion and the state -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Religion and the state 0
4	Disagree	Religion and the state +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Religion and the state +1

Intended dimension: Religion and the state
Opposing value: Public reason accessible to all, versus the integrity of a representative’s own convictions.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think public decisions need reasons that people outside a faith could also accept.
Still unsure?: Disagreeing has a serious argument behind it: that a representative’s deepest convictions are exactly what voters chose, and asking them to set those aside is asking them to be someone else.
Wording notes: The reflection is written to strengthen the "disagree" side, because the item as posed carries a mild pull toward the secular answer through the phrase "reasons anyone could accept".
Source or basis: Rawls, Political Liberalism (1993), on public reason; Wolterstorff’s religious-integrity objection in Audi and Wolterstorff, Religion in the Public Square (1997).

rel-0406 · Religion and the stateHandled as sensitive

A public hospital employee wants to wear a visible religious symbol at work. Some patients say a public service should not display religious affiliation.

What should the rule be?

Direction — rel-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Allow it. Public employees do not give up their religious identity by taking a public job.	Religion and the state +1Personal liberty +0.4
2	Allow it, with limits only where it interferes with the work itself.	Religion and the state +0.3Personal liberty +0.2
3	Do not allow it while on duty. Someone acting for the state should appear neutral.	Religion and the state -1Personal liberty -0.3
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Religion and the state (+ Personal liberty)
Opposing value: Individual religious expression, versus the visible neutrality of the state.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This puts religious freedom and state neutrality in direct conflict, in a case where both have a real claim.
Still unsure?: The symbol is unspecified. If you would answer differently for a symbol from a majority faith than for one from a minority faith, that difference is worth examining.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded and cross-loaded onto liberty, since the accommodating answer is also a liberty answer. The majority/minority test in the reflection is the main safeguard against respondents answering about one specific symbol.
Source or basis: Bijoe Emmanuel v. State of Kerala (1986) on religious expression in India; Eweida and Others v. United Kingdom (ECHR, 2013).

rel-0506 · Religion and the state

Some argue that religious institutions provide schooling, care and relief that the state cannot match, and should therefore receive public funding for that work.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — rel-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Religion and the state +1
2	Agree	Religion and the state +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Religion and the state 0
4	Disagree	Religion and the state -0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Religion and the state -1

Intended dimension: Religion and the state
Opposing value: Practical partnership with faith institutions, versus keeping public money out of religion.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This separates the question of religion in public life from the question of religion in law — a religious body can deliver public services without religious law.
Still unsure?: The funding would go to all faiths on the same terms, including ones you may know little about. That is part of what is being decided.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection universalises the policy across all faiths, which is the standard test for whether support is principled rather than particular.
Source or basis: Comparative faith-based service delivery policy; Articles 28 and 30, Constitution of India, on religious instruction and minority educational institutions.

rel-0606 · Religion and the stateHandled as sensitive

An adult decides to leave the religion they were raised in, or to adopt a different one. Their family and community object strongly.

What should the law do?

Direction — rel-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Protect the individual’s decision fully, including against pressure from their own family.	Personal liberty +1Religion and the state -0.4
2	Protect the decision, but require a formal declaration so that it is clearly voluntary.	Personal liberty +0.15
3	Allow it but regulate it closely, since conversion can involve inducement or pressure.	Personal liberty -0.5Religion and the state +0.4
4	Treat it as a matter for the family and community, not for the law.	Personal liberty -1Religion and the state +0.5
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Religion and the state)
Opposing value: Individual religious conscience, versus community and family authority over belief.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Freedom of religion includes the freedom to leave one. This explores whether you extend it that far.
Still unsure?: Neither the religion left nor the religion adopted is specified — and the answer should not depend on which they are.
Wording notes: Scores primarily on liberty, since this is a conscience question rather than a church–state question. Option C states the regulatory rationale in the terms its supporters actually use, without endorsing or mocking it.
Source or basis: Article 25, Constitution of India; Article 18, Universal Declaration of Human Rights; state freedom-of-religion legislation and litigation on conversion.

rel-0706 · Religion and the stateHandled as sensitive

A religious practice conflicts with a general law — for example, a rule on animal welfare, working hours, or building safety.

What should give way?

Direction — rel-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The law should apply equally, with no religious exemptions.	Religion and the state -1
2	Grant an exemption only where it causes no harm to anyone else.	Religion and the state +0.15
3	Grant exemptions for established religious practice as a general rule.	Religion and the state +1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Religion and the state
Opposing value: One law applying to all, versus accommodation of religious obligation.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether religious practice should get exemptions from laws that apply to everyone else.
Still unsure?: Whatever rule you pick applies to every faith in the country, including the smallest ones and the one you know least about.
Wording notes: Three deliberately mundane examples are given (animal welfare, working hours, building safety) instead of one charged case, so the item measures the exemption principle rather than a specific controversy.
Source or basis: Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990); essential religious practices doctrine in Indian constitutional law.

rel-0806 · Religion and the state

A state school system is deciding what to do about religion in the curriculum, in a country where most families belong to one tradition and a substantial minority do not.

What should schools teach?

Direction — rel-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Nothing about religion beyond history. Belief is for families and religious institutions, not for a public classroom.	Religion and the state -1Personal liberty +0.3
2	Comparative teaching about all the major traditions, taught as belief systems rather than as truth.	Religion and the state -0.3
3	Instruction in the majority tradition, with an opt-out and alternative provision for those who want it.	Religion and the state +0.6Tradition and change -0.3
4	Instruction in the majority tradition for all pupils. It is the moral inheritance of the country and children should have it.	Religion and the state +1Tradition and change -0.6Personal liberty -0.4
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Religion and the state (+ Personal liberty, Tradition and change)
Opposing value: That a shared moral and religious inheritance is part of what schools exist to transmit, and that stripping it out leaves children with less, not with neutrality.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Schools are where a state decides what the next generation is given as common inheritance, which makes religious education a sharper test than questions about adults.
Still unsure?: Answer it once as a member of the majority tradition and once as a member of the minority. If the answers differ, the question is which one a public system should be designed around.
Wording notes: The four options are real arrangements found in different countries. The majority-instruction options are stated as claims about inheritance and formation rather than as impositions, and the opt-out variant is separated from the compulsory one because the difference matters.
Source or basis: The contrasting settlements in French laïcité, German confessional instruction with opt-out, English non-denominational RE, and the Irish patronage system.

dem-0107 · Democracy and political system

A government is very popular and wins a large majority. It proposes to change the rules on who can run for office and how elections are supervised.

What should be required?

Direction — dem-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	A simple majority is enough. That is what winning an election means.	Power and its limits -1
2	A larger majority, or a second vote after an interval.	Power and its limits +0.4
3	Agreement from the opposition as well, since these rules decide how power changes hands.	Power and its limits +1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits
Opposing value: The authority of an electoral mandate, versus entrenchment of the rules of contest.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think the rules of the political contest itself should be harder to change than ordinary laws.
Still unsure?: Option C gives a defeated opposition a veto over reforms that may genuinely be needed. That is a real cost, not a technicality.
Wording notes: The government is described as genuinely popular, so the item is not a disguised question about a disliked leader. The reflection names the cost of the pro-checks answer to counter social desirability.
Source or basis: Comparative constitutional design literature on entrenchment; Venice Commission opinions on amending electoral law by simple majority.

dem-0207 · Democracy and political system

Some argue that important decisions — on taxes, on major projects, on constitutional change — should be put directly to voters rather than left to elected representatives.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — dem-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Power and its limits +0.6
2	Agree	Power and its limits +0.3
3	Neutral or unsure	Power and its limits 0
4	Disagree	Power and its limits -0.2
5	Strongly disagree	Power and its limits -0.4

Intended dimension: Power and its limits
Opposing value: Direct popular sovereignty, versus representative deliberation.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you trust direct popular decision more than deliberation by representatives.
Still unsure?: Direct votes can bypass a captured legislature, and can also strip protections from a minority that has no way to outvote anyone.
Wording notes: Deliberately given a smaller effect range than other items on this axis. Direct democracy sits awkwardly on a checks-and-pluralism scale: it is more majoritarian and more participatory at once, so it should not swing the axis as hard as the judicial-review or emergency items do.
Source or basis: Swiss referendum practice; literature on direct democracy and minority rights, including Brexit and California proposition scholarship.

dem-0307 · Democracy and political system

A newspaper publishes accurate but embarrassing information about senior officials, obtained from a leak.

What should follow?

Direction — dem-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The newspaper should face consequences for publishing leaked material.	Power and its limits -1Personal liberty -0.5
2	The leaker should face consequences, but not the newspaper.	Power and its limits +0.2
3	Neither. Officials should have to answer for what was published.	Power and its limits +1Personal liberty +0.5
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ Personal liberty)
Opposing value: Press scrutiny of power, versus government control of official information.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: A free press is one of the main ways power is checked between elections. This explores how much protection you think it should have.
Still unsure?: The information is stipulated to be accurate. If your answer depends on whether it is, that is a different question — about verification, not about press freedom.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Accuracy is stipulated so that the item measures attitudes to press freedom rather than to misinformation, which is handled separately in fre-04.
Source or basis: Official Secrets Act, 1923 (India) and its critiques; New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971).

dem-0407 · Democracy and political system

Some argue that certain decisions — interest rates, drug approvals, food safety standards — are better made by independent experts than by elected politicians.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — dem-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Power and its limits +0.5
2	Agree	Power and its limits +0.25
3	Neutral or unsure	Power and its limits 0
4	Disagree	Power and its limits -0.25
5	Strongly disagree	Power and its limits -0.5

Intended dimension: Power and its limits
Opposing value: Insulated technical competence, versus decisions answerable at the ballot box.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you see independent institutions as a check on power or as a way of putting decisions beyond the reach of voters.
Still unsure?: Expert bodies are insulated from short-term pressure, and are also difficult to remove when they get something wrong. Both are consequences of the same design.
Wording notes: Given a reduced effect range: independent expertise disperses power (pluralist) but also removes it from voters (counter-majoritarian), so it should not carry the same weight as the core items on this axis. Populist scepticism of technocracy is treated as a coherent democratic argument, not as ignorance.
Source or basis: Literature on central bank independence and non-majoritarian institutions; Vibert, The Rise of the Unelected (2007), and populist critiques of technocracy.

dem-0507 · Democracy and political systemHandled as sensitive

A party wins power with the support of a large majority, and proposes a policy that would remove a legal protection currently relied on by a small minority.

What should happen?

Direction — dem-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The majority should prevail. That is what elections decide.	Power and its limits -1
2	The policy should proceed only after the affected group has been formally consulted.	Power and its limits +0.3
3	The protection should stand. Some things should not be removable by a majority vote.	Power and its limits +1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits
Opposing value: Majority decision, versus protections a majority cannot remove.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This is the clearest form of the majority-versus-minority question: what a majority may do to a group that cannot outvote it.
Still unsure?: The minority is unnamed on purpose — it could be religious, linguistic, regional, political or economic. The rule you choose will protect all of them, or none.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The minority is left unspecified and includes political and economic minorities in the reflection, so that respondents cannot answer on the basis of sympathy for a particular group.
Source or basis: Constituent Assembly Debates on minority rights (India, 1949); Federalist No. 10 on faction; Kesavananda Bharati (1973).

dem-0607 · Democracy and political system

Some argue that people and organisations should be free to spend as much of their own money as they wish on political campaigning.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — dem-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly disagree	Power and its limits +1
2	Disagree	Power and its limits +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Power and its limits 0
4	Agree	Power and its limits -0.5
5	Strongly agree	Power and its limits -1Personal liberty +0.3

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ Personal liberty)
Opposing value: Political equality between citizens, versus freedom to spend on political speech.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think political influence should track wealth, and whether limiting spending is a restriction on speech.
Still unsure?: Spending limits reduce the advantage of wealth and also restrict what people may do with their own money to support a cause. Both descriptions are accurate.
Wording notes: Cross-loaded onto liberty at the permissive end, because the "spend freely" position is a genuine liberty claim and not only a pro-wealth one.
Source or basis: Citizens United v. FEC, 558 U.S. 310 (2010); Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2024) on electoral bonds in India.

dem-0707 · Democracy and political system

Some argue that ordinary people understand what a country needs better than experts, senior officials and established institutions do.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — dem-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world +0.5Power and its limits -0.3
2	Agree	Nation and the world +0.25Power and its limits -0.15
3	Neutral or unsure
4	Disagree	Nation and the world -0.25Power and its limits +0.15
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world -0.5Power and its limits +0.3

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Trust in popular judgement, versus trust in institutional expertise.
Weight: 0.8
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This measures populist sentiment — the belief that ordinary people’s judgement is more reliable than that of established institutions.
Still unsure?: This sentiment appears across the political spectrum, on the left and the right alike, and it is not the same as being for or against any particular party.
Wording notes: Populism is measured as a stance toward elites rather than as a position on the left–right line, which is why it loads weakly on two axes rather than strongly on one. Wording avoids both "the people" as a moral category and "the mob" as a pejorative.
Source or basis: Mudde, "The Populist Zeitgeist" (2004); Norris and Inglehart, Cultural Backlash (2019).

dem-0807 · Democracy and political system

A country is choosing how to convert votes into seats. One system usually produces a single-party government that can act; the other reflects the vote share closely and usually requires a coalition to agree before anything passes.

Which would you choose?

Direction — dem-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	The system that produces a working majority. A government that can act and be blamed at the next election is worth the distortion.	Power and its limits -0.9Nation and the world +0.2
2	The system that reflects the vote. A parliament that mirrors how people actually voted is worth the slower bargaining.	Power and its limits +0.9Nation and the world -0.2
3	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ Nation and the world)
Opposing value: That a legislature should reproduce the distribution of opinion in the country, and that governments formed by negotiation are more representative than governments formed by an electoral accident.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Electoral system design is where the trade-off between decisive government and accurate representation is made concrete, and most people have never been asked to choose.
Still unsure?: Try answering it twice: once assuming your own side wins under the first system, once assuming it does not. If the answer moves, the principle is doing less work than it appeared to.
Wording notes: Neither system is named, so the item is not answered by national attachment to whatever the reader grew up with. Each option carries the cost of the other as an acknowledged price rather than a hidden one.
Source or basis: The standard majoritarian-versus-proportional comparison; the two options describe first-past-the-post and list proportional representation without naming either.

dem-0907 · Democracy and political system

Some argue that a small number of owners controlling most of a country’s newspapers and broadcasters is a problem the law should correct, even though the outlets were bought lawfully.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — dem-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Power and its limits +1The state in the economy -0.4
2	Agree	Power and its limits +0.5The state in the economy -0.2
3	Neutral or unsure	Power and its limits 0
4	Disagree	Power and its limits -0.5The state in the economy +0.2
5	Strongly disagree	Power and its limits -1The state in the economy +0.4

Intended dimension: Power and its limits (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: That the state deciding who may own a newspaper is a greater danger to a free press than concentrated private ownership is.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Concentrated media ownership sits between two commitments that usually agree — property rights and a plural press — and forces a choice between them.
Still unsure?: Whoever writes the ownership rules is a government with an interest in its own coverage. Does that make you more cautious about the remedy, or more worried about the problem?
Wording notes: Reverse-coded so agreement points toward pluralism, balancing the democracy items where agreement points toward concentrated authority. States that the outlets were lawfully acquired, so the case is not stacked.
Source or basis: Media plurality tests in UK and EU competition law, and the cross-ownership rules that several countries maintain or have repealed.

for-0108 · Foreign policy and the worldHandled as sensitive

A government in another country is killing large numbers of its own civilians. Military intervention could stop it, but would cost lives, including civilian lives, and there is no guarantee of what follows.

What should other countries do?

Direction — for-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Intervene militarily. Sovereignty does not cover killing your own population.	Nation and the world -1
2	Intervene only with authorisation from an international body.	Nation and the world -0.4Power and its limits +0.2
3	Use sanctions, diplomacy and refuge for those fleeing, but no military force.	Nation and the world +0.4
4	Stay out. What happens inside a country is that country’s own affair.	Nation and the world +1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Protection of people beyond your borders, versus non-interference in sovereign states.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think sovereignty has limits when a state is harming its own people, and who may decide that it does.
Still unsure?: The cost of intervening is stated, and so is the cost of not intervening. Interventions have both stopped mass killing and made things worse; the record contains examples of each.
Wording notes: No country is named, in either the intervening or the target role. The reflection states plainly that the historical record supports both sides, since a one-sided reading here would push the answer.
Source or basis: UN World Summit Outcome (2005), Responsibility to Protect; comparative assessments of the Kosovo, Libya and Rwanda cases.

for-0208 · Foreign policy and the world

Cheaper imported goods would lower prices for consumers, but would put a domestic industry — and the towns built around it — out of business.

What should the government do?

Direction — for-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Allow the imports. Cheaper goods benefit everyone who buys them, which is everyone.	The state in the economy +1Nation and the world -0.4
2	Allow them, but fund retraining and support for the affected towns.	The state in the economy +0.2
3	Phase in tariffs to give the domestic industry time to adjust.	The state in the economy -0.5Nation and the world +0.4
4	Protect the industry. A country should be able to keep making things it depends on.	The state in the economy -1Nation and the world +0.6
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: The state in the economy (+ Nation and the world)
Opposing value: Open trade and consumer gains, versus protection of domestic production and place.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how you weigh dispersed benefits to consumers against concentrated losses to a particular place and workforce.
Still unsure?: The gains are small and spread across millions; the losses are large and concentrated on a few thousand. That asymmetry is the heart of most trade disputes.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Scores mainly on stateEconomy because protectionism is an intervention question, with a secondary nation loading. The reflection names the asymmetry rather than resolving it.
Source or basis: Standard trade-adjustment literature; Autor, Dorn and Hanson, "The China Shock" (2016); Indian tariff policy debates on self-reliance.

for-0308 · Foreign policy and the world

Some argue that a country should keep its defence spending high even in peacetime, because security cannot be improvised once a crisis begins.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — for-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world +1
2	Agree	Nation and the world +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Nation and the world 0
4	Disagree	Nation and the world -0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world -1

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Preparedness and deterrence, versus other uses of the same public money.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores how much of a country’s resources you would commit to security against threats that may not arrive.
Still unsure?: The money involved is the same money that could fund schools or hospitals. That is true whichever way you answer.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The opportunity cost is stated in the reflection so that the low-spending answer is not free either; no adversary is named.
Source or basis: SIPRI Military Expenditure Database; standing debates over defence budget shares in India and elsewhere.

for-0408 · Foreign policy and the world

A global agreement asks countries to cut emissions. Poorer countries argue that richer ones caused most of the accumulated pollution and should cut far more, and pay for the transition elsewhere.

What is the fairest arrangement?

Direction — for-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Richer countries should cut most and fund the transition elsewhere.	Environment and growth +1Nation and the world -0.5
2	Everyone should cut, with poorer countries given more time and some support.	Environment and growth +0.4Nation and the world -0.2
3	Everyone should cut by the same proportion, regardless of history.	Environment and growth -0.2Nation and the world +0.3
4	Each country should decide for itself. Development should not be constrained by an outside agreement.	Environment and growth -1Nation and the world +0.8
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Environment and growth (+ Nation and the world)
Opposing value: Shared but differentiated global obligation, versus national control over development.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think historical responsibility should determine present obligations, and whether climate duties should be binding across borders.
Still unsure?: Option D is not a claim that the problem is unreal — it is a claim about who has standing to impose obligations on whom.
Wording notes: The poorer-country argument is stated in its own terms because it is the position of most of the world’s governments, including India’s; option D is given a non-denialist rationale so that sovereignty-based objections are not conflated with rejecting climate science.
Source or basis: UNFCCC principle of common but differentiated responsibilities; Paris Agreement (2015), Article 4; India’s Nationally Determined Contribution submissions.

for-0508 · Foreign policy and the world

A country is deciding whether to enter a long-term alliance that would commit it to defend other members, and commit them to defend it.

What would you prefer?

Direction — for-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Stay independent. Binding commitments drag countries into other people’s wars.	Nation and the world +1
2	Cooperate closely without binding defence commitments.	Nation and the world +0.3
3	Join. Mutual defence makes attack less likely in the first place.	Nation and the world -1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Strategic autonomy, versus collective security.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you see security as best pursued through independence or through binding commitments to others.
Still unsure?: India’s long practice of non-alignment and the alliance systems of Europe and East Asia are both serious answers to the same problem.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Non-alignment is named as a serious tradition rather than as isolation, which matters for Indian users, and the alliance option is given the deterrence argument in return.
Source or basis: Non-Aligned Movement founding documents (1961); North Atlantic Treaty, Article 5; literature on alliance deterrence.

for-0608 · Foreign policy and the worldHandled as sensitive

Some argue that a country should accept a substantial number of refugees fleeing war or persecution, even when this is unpopular at home and costly.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — for-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world -1
2	Agree	Nation and the world -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Nation and the world 0
4	Disagree	Nation and the world +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world +1

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Humanitarian obligation to those in danger, versus the limits of what a country will absorb.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Refuge separates humanitarian obligation from ordinary migration policy: the question is what a country owes people in danger.
Still unsure?: The cost and the unpopularity are stated as given, so agreeing means accepting both. Disagreeing may reflect a view about capacity rather than about the people involved.
Wording notes: The costs are stipulated so that agreement is not free. The reflection explicitly offers a non-hostile reading of disagreement, since without it this item would function as a social-desirability test.
Source or basis: 1951 Refugee Convention; UNHCR Global Trends reports; India’s non-signatory status and its record of hosting refugee populations.

for-0708 · Foreign policy and the worldHandled as sensitive

A country can sign a large trade and investment deal with another country whose government represses its own citizens. The deal would bring significant economic benefit.

What should it do?

Direction — for-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Sign it. Trade policy should follow national interest, not judgements about other governments.	Nation and the world +1
2	Sign it, but attach conditions and raise the issue through other channels.	Nation and the world +0.2
3	Do not sign it. Economic benefit does not justify strengthening a government that represses people.	Nation and the world -1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Nation and the world
Opposing value: Interest-based statecraft, versus values-based conditions on engagement.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think foreign policy should carry moral conditions, or should be conducted on interest alone.
Still unsure?: Refusing may cost the country real income and may change nothing for the people being repressed. Signing may improve their lives through growth, or entrench the government. There is evidence in both directions.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. No country is named on either side. The reflection is careful to note the empirical uncertainty about whether engagement or isolation helps repressed populations.
Source or basis: Literature on sanctions effectiveness and constructive engagement; EU trade agreements with human rights clauses.

for-0808 · Foreign policy and the world

Some argue that a country should spend a fixed share of its national income on aid to poorer countries, sustained through good years and bad, even when there are unmet needs at home.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — for-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Nation and the world -1Wealth and inequality -0.3
2	Agree	Nation and the world -0.5Wealth and inequality -0.15
3	Neutral or unsure	Nation and the world 0
4	Disagree	Nation and the world +0.5Wealth and inequality +0.15
5	Strongly disagree	Nation and the world +1Wealth and inequality +0.3

Intended dimension: Nation and the world (+ Wealth and inequality)
Opposing value: That a government is accountable to the people who fund it, and that money raised from citizens with unmet needs should be spent on them first.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Aid is the clearest case where obligations to citizens and obligations to people elsewhere compete for the same money, with no security or trade benefit to soften the choice.
Still unsure?: The strongest objection is not selfishness but effectiveness — that much aid has not worked, and some has entrenched the governments causing the problem. Is your answer about the obligation or about whether the instrument works?
Wording notes: Names the domestic cost inside the proposition so agreement is not costless. The reflection separates the moral question from the empirical one, because they are routinely conflated in both directions.
Source or basis: The UN 0.7 per cent of gross national income target, adopted in law by several countries and reduced or abandoned by others.

env-0109 · Environment and progress

A country can cut emissions faster by closing coal plants early. Electricity would cost more for several years, and the districts that mine the coal would lose their main employer.

What should it do?

Direction — env-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Close them early and accept the costs. Delay makes the eventual problem larger.	Environment and growth +1
2	Close them early, with substantial public funding for the affected districts.	Environment and growth +0.5
3	Retire them gradually as cheaper alternatives become available.	Environment and growth -0.4
4	Keep them running. Affordable power and those jobs matter more right now.	Environment and growth -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Environment and growth
Opposing value: Speed of decarbonisation, versus present cost to households and workers.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores who you think should bear the cost of moving faster on emissions, and whether the cost is worth paying now.
Still unsure?: The people who pay most for early closure are usually not the people who benefit most from it, and they are often poorer. That is a distributional question as much as an environmental one.
Wording notes: Costs are specific and land on identifiable people, so the pro-environment answer is not free. Coal is used because it is the live case in India and elsewhere, and the item avoids implying that anyone defending coal jobs is denying the science.
Source or basis: IEA Coal 2023; literature on just transition; Indian state-level coal district transition studies.

env-0209 · Environment and progress

Some argue that technology and continued growth will solve environmental problems, and that limiting economic activity is the wrong response.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — env-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Environment and growth -1
2	Agree	Environment and growth -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Environment and growth 0
4	Disagree	Environment and growth +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Environment and growth +1

Intended dimension: Environment and growth
Opposing value: Innovation-led decoupling, versus limits on the scale of economic activity.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you think environmental limits require doing less, or doing things differently.
Still unsure?: Technology has repeatedly reduced the pollution per unit of output, while total output has kept rising. Whether that pattern can continue is genuinely contested among people who study it.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection states the empirical situation accurately in both directions — relative decoupling is well documented, absolute decoupling at the required rate is disputed — rather than settling it.
Source or basis: IPCC AR6 Working Group III (2022) on mitigation pathways; debate over absolute decoupling in Hickel and Kallis (2020) and responses.

env-0309 · Environment and progress

A proposed law would set strict pollution limits on factories. Compliance is expensive; some smaller firms say they would close.

What should the law do?

Direction — env-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Set the strict limits and enforce them on everyone.	Environment and growth +1
2	Set them, with public help for smaller firms to meet the standard.	Environment and growth +0.6The state in the economy -0.3
3	Set weaker limits that almost everyone can meet.	Environment and growth -0.5
4	Leave it to firms and their customers, without mandatory limits.	Environment and growth -1The state in the economy +0.6
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Environment and growth (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: Protection of people affected by pollution, versus the survival of smaller businesses.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you would impose environmental costs on businesses when some of them cannot absorb it.
Still unsure?: The pollution has a cost too — it is just paid by people who live nearby rather than by the firm. Neither option makes the cost disappear.
Wording notes: The reflection names the externality explicitly, because without it the item reads as costs versus no costs. Small firms rather than large corporations are used as the affected party to avoid the "greedy corporation" framing the brief rules out.
Source or basis: Central Pollution Control Board standards (India); literature on regulatory compliance costs for small and medium enterprises.

env-0409 · Environment and progressHandled as sensitive

A large dam or mine would supply power or materials the country needs, but would flood or clear an area where forest communities have lived for generations.

What should happen?

Direction — env-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Build it, with compensation and resettlement for those displaced.	Environment and growth -0.6
2	Build it only if a smaller or differently sited version is not possible.	Environment and growth +0.3
3	Build it only with the consent of the communities who live there.	Environment and growth +0.8Power and its limits +0.4
4	Do not build it. Some places should not be cleared whatever the benefit.	Environment and growth +1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Environment and growth (+ Power and its limits)
Opposing value: Development for the many, versus the rights of those who live where it happens.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether the people who lose from a development project should be able to stop it, or only to be compensated for it.
Still unsure?: The power or materials would benefit a much larger number of people, most of them also poor. Displacement records show compensation is often promised and often not delivered.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection gives both the scale of the benefit and the documented failure of compensation, so neither answer rests on an idealised assumption.
Source or basis: Forest Rights Act, 2006 (India), consent provisions; World Commission on Dams (2000); resettlement outcome studies.

env-0509 · Environment and progress

Some argue that a country should protect wild land and species even where doing so brings no economic benefit and prevents development.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — env-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Environment and growth +1
2	Agree	Environment and growth +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Environment and growth 0
4	Disagree	Environment and growth -0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Environment and growth -1

Intended dimension: Environment and growth
Opposing value: Intrinsic value of the natural world, versus human use of land and resources.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This separates environmental protection that pays for itself from protection valued for its own sake.
Still unsure?: The question strips out the economic argument deliberately. If you still agree, your reason is not about cost and benefit at all.
Wording notes: The instrumental case is removed by stipulation, which is what makes this item measure something the other environment questions do not.
Source or basis: Wildlife (Protection) Act, 1972 (India); Convention on Biological Diversity; environmental ethics literature on intrinsic value.

env-0609 · Environment and progress

A carbon tax would reduce emissions, but it raises the price of fuel and electricity, which takes a larger share of a poorer household’s income.

What should be done?

Direction — env-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Do not introduce it. Raising the cost of energy hurts those who can least afford it.	Wealth and inequality +0.5Environment and growth -0.6
2	Introduce it at a low rate that most households barely notice.	Wealth and inequality +0.1Environment and growth +0.15
3	Introduce it and return the revenue to households as a flat payment, which leaves poorer households better off.	Wealth and inequality -0.5Environment and growth +0.6
4	Introduce it and spend the revenue on public transport and clean energy.	Wealth and inequality -0.3Environment and growth +0.8The state in the economy -0.3
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Environment and growth (+ Wealth and inequality, The state in the economy)
Opposing value: Protecting low-income households from price rises, versus pricing environmental damage.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores how you would design a policy so that its costs do not fall hardest on those least able to bear them.
Still unsure?: Option C is the only one where a poorer household ends up with more money than before. Whether that changes your view of the tax is worth noticing.
Wording notes: Scored primarily on the environment axis, with a smaller symmetric loading on the economic axis, since the disagreement is about who bears the cost rather than about the size of the state. The redistributive design of option C is stated as a fact about the policy, since it is a well-established result and withholding it would make the item test knowledge rather than values.
Source or basis: Literature on carbon dividend incidence; Canadian federal carbon pricing and rebate design; IMF Fiscal Monitor (2019) on carbon taxation.

env-0709 · Environment and progress

Some argue that a poorer country should be allowed to prioritise growth now and deal with environmental costs once its people are better off.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — env-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Environment and growth -1
2	Agree	Environment and growth -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Environment and growth 0
4	Disagree	Environment and growth +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Environment and growth +1

Intended dimension: Environment and growth
Opposing value: A right to develop first, versus obligations that apply regardless of income.
Weight: 0.8
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether environmental obligations should depend on how rich a country already is.
Still unsure?: Environmental damage tends to fall hardest on poorer people within the same country, so "growth first" does not straightforwardly favour them either.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection complicates the "growth first is pro-poor" reading with the distribution of environmental harm, without asserting a conclusion.
Source or basis: Environmental Kuznets curve literature and its critiques; WHO estimates of the burden of air pollution by income group.

env-0809 · Environment and progress

A country needs electricity that does not burn coal or gas. Nuclear plants produce it continuously and take fifteen years and a great deal of money to build. Wind and solar are cheaper and faster but need storage or backup for the hours they do not generate.

What should it build?

Direction — env-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Keep burning gas while the alternatives get cheaper. Committing now to either at this cost is premature.	Environment and growth -1The state in the economy +0.3
2	Renewables only. The waste, the cost and the accident risk make nuclear the wrong answer even to a real problem.	Environment and growth +0.5The state in the economy +0.2
3	Both, with the state funding the nuclear build because no private investor will carry a fifteen-year risk.	Environment and growth +1The state in the economy -0.7
4	Nuclear as the backbone, with renewables filling in. Continuous generation is what a grid actually needs.	Environment and growth +0.7The state in the economy -0.3
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Environment and growth (+ The state in the economy)
Opposing value: That nuclear power carries risks and costs that outlast any government, and that a decentralised renewable system is both cheaper and safer.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Nuclear power splits people who agree completely that emissions must fall, which makes it unusually informative about what is driving an environmental position.
Still unsure?: If you rejected nuclear, ask whether the objection is to the emissions arithmetic or to something else — cost, waste, risk, centralisation. Those lead to different conclusions.
Wording notes: Each option states its own strongest reason. The renewables-only option is given the substantive anti-nuclear argument rather than being left as a preference, and the delay option is stated as a judgement about timing rather than as indifference.
Source or basis: Comparative levelised-cost and build-time data for nuclear and renewables, and the divergent national choices made by France, Germany and South Korea.

env-0909 · Environment and progress

Some argue that because livestock uses a large share of farmland and water, governments should actively discourage meat consumption through taxes, procurement rules and advertising limits.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — env-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Environment and growth +1Personal liberty -0.4
2	Agree	Environment and growth +0.5Personal liberty -0.2
3	Neutral or unsure	Environment and growth 0
4	Disagree	Environment and growth -0.5Personal liberty +0.2
5	Strongly disagree	Environment and growth -1Personal liberty +0.4

Intended dimension: Environment and growth (+ Personal liberty)
Opposing value: That what people eat is not a matter for state direction, and that using tax and procurement to shift diets treats citizens as a problem to be managed.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Environmental policy usually targets producers. This targets everyday consumption, which is where ecological commitments meet personal freedom most directly.
Still unsure?: Diet is also cultural and religious for many people, and a general measure lands unevenly across communities. Does that affect what you think the state should do here?
Wording notes: Names concrete instruments — tax, procurement, advertising — so the answer attaches to policy rather than to a general attitude about meat. The reflection raises the uneven cultural impact explicitly rather than leaving it implied.
Source or basis: Land-use and emissions accounting for livestock agriculture, and the public procurement and advertising measures adopted in several European cities.

jus-0110 · Justice and punishment

A young adult with no previous record is convicted of a serious theft. The victim has lost a great deal and wants a heavy sentence.

What should the sentence aim at?

Direction — jus-01
#	Your answer	Effect
1	A long prison term. Serious wrongdoing should carry a serious penalty.	Crime and punishment -1
2	A short prison term, mainly to mark the seriousness of what was done.	Crime and punishment -0.35
3	Repayment to the victim, supervision and work, rather than prison.	Crime and punishment +0.7
4	Whatever is most likely to stop them offending again, even if it feels lenient.	Crime and punishment +1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment
Opposing value: Deserved punishment and vindication of the victim, versus reducing future offending.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores what you think a sentence is mainly for: marking desert, protecting the public, or reducing reoffending.
Still unsure?: The victim’s loss is real and so is the offender’s youth. A sentencing rule has to give an answer in cases where those point in different directions.
Wording notes: The victim is given a voice, which most rehabilitation-framed items omit. Option D names the discomfort of the rehabilitative answer ("even if it feels lenient") rather than presenting it as costless.
Source or basis: Sentencing theory: von Hirsch on desert; Ministry of Justice (UK) reoffending statistics comparing custodial and community sentences.

jus-0210 · Justice and punishmentHandled as sensitive

Some argue that the death penalty should be available for the most serious crimes.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — jus-02
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Crime and punishment -1
2	Agree	Crime and punishment -0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Crime and punishment 0
4	Disagree	Crime and punishment +0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Crime and punishment +1

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment
Opposing value: Proportionate retribution for the gravest crimes, versus an absolute limit on what the state may do.
Weight: 1.1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This is the clearest single indicator of where you sit between punishment and rehabilitation as the purpose of criminal law.
Still unsure?: Two facts are worth holding together: some crimes are grave enough that many people feel nothing less would be proportionate, and no justice system has ever been free of wrongful conviction.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection gives one weighty consideration to each side and does not tell the respondent which should prevail.
Source or basis: Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980), "rarest of rare" doctrine in India; Law Commission of India Report No. 262 (2015); Death Penalty India Report (NLU Delhi, 2016).

jus-0310 · Justice and punishment

A country’s prisons are overcrowded. It can build more prisons, or release lower-risk prisoners early under supervision.

Which would you prefer?

Direction — jus-03
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Build more prisons. People sentenced to a term should serve it.	Crime and punishment -1
2	Build some capacity and release some prisoners early.	Crime and punishment +0.1
3	Release lower-risk prisoners early and spend the money on supervision and support instead.	Crime and punishment +1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment
Opposing value: Serving the full sentence imposed, versus using scarce resources where they reduce most harm.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This turns the punishment question into a resource question, where the trade-off has to be made explicit.
Still unsure?: Early release means some people will offend who would otherwise have been inside. More prisons means money not spent elsewhere. Both are real costs.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. The reflection concedes that early release carries genuine risk, which most versions of this question omit.
Source or basis: National Crime Records Bureau, Prison Statistics India; undertrial population data; comparative evidence on supervised early release.

jus-0410 · Justice and punishment

Some argue that when someone has served their sentence, all restrictions should end — including bars on jobs, licences and public office.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — jus-04
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Crime and punishment +1
2	Agree	Crime and punishment +0.5
3	Neutral or unsure	Crime and punishment 0
4	Disagree	Crime and punishment -0.5
5	Strongly disagree	Crime and punishment -1

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment
Opposing value: A definite end to punishment, versus continuing protection and accountability.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether punishment should have a definite end, or whether a conviction should carry consequences for life.
Still unsure?: Employment is one of the strongest predictors of not reoffending. Some restrictions also exist to protect specific groups of people from specific risks.
Wording notes: The reflection gives the strongest evidence for each side in one sentence each. "Public office" is included because it is where this question is politically live in India.
Source or basis: Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualification provisions (India); reoffending and employment literature.

jus-0510 · Justice and punishment

Crime is rising in a neighbourhood. The city can put many more police on the streets, or fund youth employment, housing and mental health services in the same area.

Where should the money go?

Direction — jus-05
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Mostly to policing. Visible enforcement is what stops crime happening now.	Crime and punishment -1
2	Split it between the two.	Crime and punishment +0.1
3	Mostly to the services. Addressing the conditions does more over time.	Crime and punishment +1
4	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment
Opposing value: Deterrence through enforcement, versus prevention through social conditions.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether you see crime primarily as something to be deterred, or as something produced by conditions that can be changed.
Still unsure?: Both approaches have evidence behind them, and they work on different timescales — one now, one over years. The people living there have to get through both.
Wording notes: Reverse-coded. Neither option is described as defunding or as over-policing; the reflection notes the different timescales, which is the honest summary of the evidence.
Source or basis: Evidence on police presence and crime (Chalfin and McCrary, 2017); evaluations of social-investment crime prevention programmes.

jus-0610 · Justice and punishment

Some argue that it is better for several guilty people to go free than for one innocent person to be convicted.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — jus-06
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Personal liberty +1Crime and punishment +0.3
2	Agree	Personal liberty +0.5Crime and punishment +0.15
3	Neutral or unsure
4	Disagree	Personal liberty -0.5Crime and punishment -0.15
5	Strongly disagree	Personal liberty -1Crime and punishment -0.3

Intended dimension: Personal liberty (+ Crime and punishment)
Opposing value: Protection against wrongful conviction, versus protection against crimes left unpunished.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Every justice system has to decide which kind of error it would rather make. This asks which one you would choose.
Still unsure?: Disagreeing is not the same as wanting innocent people convicted. It may mean that you think the people harmed by guilty people going free are also real, and more numerous.
Wording notes: Scored mainly on liberty, since this is a question about state power over the individual rather than about the purpose of punishment. The reflection blocks the reading that disagreement is monstrous.
Source or basis: Blackstone’s ratio, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765–69); literature on error costs in criminal procedure.

jus-0710 · Justice and punishmentHandled as sensitive

After a violent crime, the victim’s family says that what would help them most is an honest account from the offender and a chance to be heard — not a longer sentence.

Should the system make room for that?

Direction — jus-07
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Yes, and it should be able to reduce the sentence where the victim asks for that.	Crime and punishment +1
2	Yes, alongside the sentence, without changing it.	Crime and punishment +0.4
3	Only if the offender initiates it, and with no effect on the sentence.	Crime and punishment -0.2
4	No. Punishment is owed to society as a whole, not only to the victim.	Crime and punishment -1
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment
Opposing value: Restorative justice centred on the victim, versus consistent public punishment.
Weight: 0.9
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: This explores whether the victim’s own wishes should shape the response to a crime, or whether punishment is owed to society independently.
Still unsure?: Option D is not indifference to the victim. It is the view that if sentences varied with what each victim wanted, similar crimes would be punished very differently.
Wording notes: The restorative option is framed through what the victim wants, which is the honest version of the case for it, and option D is given the consistency argument rather than being left as a bare refusal.
Source or basis: Restorative justice evaluations (Sherman and Strang, 2007); victim satisfaction research; consistency-in-sentencing scholarship.

jus-0810 · Justice and punishment

A police officer causes a death during an arrest. The internal inquiry clears them. The family says the inquiry was conducted by the officer’s own force.

What should happen?

Direction — jus-08
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Accept the finding. Officers make split-second decisions and second-guessing them makes policing impossible.	Crime and punishment -1Personal liberty -0.5Power and its limits -0.5
2	Keep internal inquiries, but publish them and allow the family to see the evidence.	Crime and punishment -0.1Power and its limits +0.3
3	Require an independent body outside the police to investigate every death in custody or during arrest.	Crime and punishment +0.7Power and its limits +0.8
4	Independent investigation, with prosecution decided by that body rather than by prosecutors who work with the force daily.	Crime and punishment +1Power and its limits +1Personal liberty +0.4
5	Not enough information to say.	— (no evidence)

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment (+ Personal liberty, Power and its limits)
Opposing value: That officers act under pressure no reviewer can reconstruct, and that a force which fears prosecution stops intervening when intervention is needed.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: No
Why are we asking this?: Accountability for state force is where views about order and about checks on power meet, and the two do not always point the same way for the same person.
Still unsure?: Consider what you would want if the officer were a relative of yours, and then if the person who died were. If those give different answers, the question is what a system should do when it cannot know in advance which you are.
Wording notes: The first option states the operational argument properly rather than as indifference to a death. The context gives the family’s objection as a fact about the process, not as an allegation about the outcome.
Source or basis: Independent police complaints bodies in England and Wales, Northern Ireland and several US states, and the recurring dispute over who decides prosecution.

jus-0910 · Justice and punishment

Some argue that a person under eighteen should be dealt with by a separate system built around reform, however serious the offence, rather than tried and sentenced as an adult.

How do you feel about this?

Direction — jus-09
#	Your answer	Effect
1	Strongly agree	Crime and punishment +1Tradition and change +0.3
2	Agree	Crime and punishment +0.5Tradition and change +0.15
3	Neutral or unsure	Crime and punishment 0
4	Disagree	Crime and punishment -0.5Tradition and change -0.15
5	Strongly disagree	Crime and punishment -1Tradition and change -0.3

Intended dimension: Crime and punishment (+ Tradition and change)
Opposing value: That the seriousness of the harm to the victim does not change with the age of whoever caused it, and that a fixed threshold lets grave acts go lightly punished.
Weight: 1
Reverse-coded: Yes
Why are we asking this?: Age is where the purposes of punishment separate most clearly: the same act can call for desert, deterrence or reform depending on who did it.
Still unsure?: The evidence that adolescent judgement differs from adult judgement is strong. The question is whether that is a reason to punish differently, or only a reason to explain differently.
Wording notes: Puts the separate-system position as the statement so that agreement points toward rehabilitation, offsetting the justice items where the first option points toward punishment. Names no specific age of majority, which varies widely.
Source or basis: Transfer and waiver statutes moving minors to adult courts, and the developmental neuroscience relied on in Roper v. Simmons and comparable judgments.