UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Every group is a five letter palindrome where the first and last letters match, and the second and fourth letters also match. Moving from one term to the next, all letters shift one step forward in the alphabet: ABCBA becomes BCDCB, then CDEDC, then DEFED. Continuing this rule, D becomes E, E becomes F and F becomes G for the central letter, so the new group must be EFGFE. This preserves both the palindromic structure and the uniform forward movement.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it uses E as the new outer letter, F as the new second and fourth letters and G as the new centre. These letters are each obtained by shifting the corresponding letters of DEFED forward by one position. The result is a perfect five letter palindrome that mirrors the behaviour of the earlier terms.

Option B:
Option B, EFHFE, introduces H as the central letter while the second and fourth letters remain F. That would mean the centre has moved two steps from E to H instead of one, breaking the consistent +1 progression. Since the pattern does not show unequal jumps, EFHFE cannot be the correct continuation.

Option C:
Option C, EFGGF, loses the palindromic form because the first and last letters are not the same. The series clearly maintains symmetry in every term. By changing the structure of the word, EFGGF fails to fit the given pattern.

Option D:
Option D, EFFGE, also spoils the required symmetry and does not match the simple column wise shift from DEFED. The positions of letters are altered in a way that is not supported by any earlier step. Therefore EFFGE cannot be accepted as the next term.

Statement D is the only wrong statement because qualitative research does not “always” use probability sampling and large random samples; it often relies on purposive or theoretical sampling and smaller, information-rich cases. Statements A, B and C correctly describe common features of quantitative and qualitative research, and E is correct about integrating both within mixed-methods designs. Therefore, D alone misrepresents qualitative sampling practice.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it isolates D as the sole incorrect statement and implicitly confirms that A, B, C and E are consistent with standard methodological descriptions. It acknowledges that sampling strategies differ across approaches and that qualitative studies frequently use non-probability samples.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes A in the set of wrong statements even though A correctly defines quantitative research as relying on numerical data and statistical analysis. Misclassifying a correct definition as wrong makes this option unacceptable.

Option C:
Option C wrongly treats C as wrong along with D, even though C accurately notes that quantitative research may involve experiments, surveys and correlational designs. This option therefore misrepresents accepted quantitative designs.

Option D:
Option D incorrectly includes B with D, despite B being a correct description of qualitative research focusing on meanings and perspectives. Grouping a true statement with a false one leads to an erroneous combination.

Option E suggests that both D and E are wrong, but E is correct because mixed-methods studies do integrate qualitative and quantitative components. By labelling E as wrong, this option directly contradicts established descriptions of mixed-methods research.

NEP 2020 encourages HEIs to provide internships, community engagement projects and field experiences so that students can apply theoretical knowledge, gain practical skills and enhance employability.

Option A:
Treating internships as distractions ignores NEP’s emphasis on experiential learning.

Option B:
This option reflects the policy’s call for closer connections between HEIs, industry and community through structured internships and projects.

Option C:
The policy discusses internships even at the undergraduate level, not only for Ph.D. students.

Option D:
Completely replacing classroom learning with internships would remove essential theoretical foundations, which NEP continues to value.

Successive terms decrease by 3: 17 − 20 = −3, 14 − 17 = −3 and 11 − 14 = −3. This forms an arithmetic progression with common difference −3. Subtracting 3 from the last term 11 gives 8. Therefore, 8 is the next term in the series.

Option A:
Option A keeps the same step because 11 − 3 = 8, maintaining the constant change of −3. The series 20, 17, 14, 11, 8 stays perfectly regular under this rule. Hence, this option correctly extends the pattern.

Option B:
Option B is 10, which is only 1 less than 11 and would change the difference to −1. That conflicts with the consistent decrease by 3 observed earlier. Therefore, 10 cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is 9, giving a difference of −2 from 11 and again disturbing the established constant difference. The sequence would become irregular at the end. Thus, 9 is not correct.

Option D:
Option D is 7, which is 4 less than 11, producing a difference of −4. This also contradicts the steady difference of −3 that defines the progression. Therefore, 7 is not the right choice.

Explanatory research goes beyond description to investigate why and how certain phenomena occur by testing specific hypotheses about causal relationships among variables. It often uses more rigorous designs such as experiments or sophisticated statistical models to rule out alternative explanations. The goal is to build and confirm theories that explain observed patterns. Because the stem refers to research designed to test hypotheses about cause–effect relationships, explanatory research is the correct term.

Option A:
Exploratory research is conducted when the problem is not clearly defined and the researcher seeks to gain familiarity, generate ideas or identify variables, without strong prior hypotheses about cause and effect. It is thus less focused on hypothesis testing than explanatory research, so it does not fit the stem.

Option B:
Descriptive research aims to present an accurate picture of characteristics, frequencies or distributions of variables, answering “what” questions rather than “why.” It does not primarily test causal hypotheses, so descriptive research is not the right completion here.

Option C:
Explanatory research typically builds on earlier exploratory and descriptive work and requires careful control or statistical adjustment for confounding variables. Its emphasis on causal reasoning and hypothesis testing aligns exactly with the description given in the question.

Option D:
Diagnostic research is oriented toward identifying reasons for specific conditions or problems in applied contexts, such as why a particular programme is failing, but the term is less commonly used as a general label for testing causal hypotheses across variables. Therefore, diagnostic research is not the best answer.

All five statements are correct: truth tables enumerate combinations, test validity via true-premise/false-conclusion rows, identify tautologies by all-true columns, require 2³ = 8 rows for three variables, and underpin many exam solutions even when not drawn.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E (implicit exam use).

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits D (8-row fact for three variables).

Option C:
Option C is correct because it includes all true statements (A–E).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits A (the basic definition of what truth tables do).

Statements A, B, C and D define different forms of triangulation, and E explains its main purpose. A is true because data triangulation uses varied sources or times, while B is correct that investigator triangulation brings in multiple researchers. C accurately describes methodological triangulation, and D is right that theory triangulation applies several theoretical lenses. E is also true since triangulation aims to enhance credibility by cross-checking evidence, whereas F is false because triangulation is widely used in qualitative and mixed-methods research, not only quantitative work.

Option A:
Option A is correct as it includes all the valid statements about types and purposes of triangulation and omits F, which is overly restrictive. Together, these statements show that triangulation can be applied at several levels to strengthen research findings. Hence, this option contains all and only the true statements.

Option B:
Option B excludes statement E, ignoring the central reason for using triangulation, namely enhancing credibility of results. While A, B, C and D are correct, the omission of E leaves the account incomplete. Therefore this option cannot be accepted as correct.

Option C:
Option C incorporates F, which wrongly limits triangulation to quantitative studies, and leaves out A, which defines data triangulation. By mixing a false statement with true ones and omitting a correct statement, this combination becomes conceptually flawed.

Option D:
Option D also includes F and omits B, thereby restricting triangulation to certain methods and ignoring the role of multiple investigators. This inaccurate representation disqualifies the option as a correct answer.

The decimal number 255 is one less than 256, which is 16². In hexadecimal, 16² corresponds to 100₁₆, so 255 must be written as 1 less than that, which is FF₁₆. Each F represents 15, and 15×16 + 15 = 240 + 15 = 255. Thus, FF₁₆ is the correct hex representation of 255₁₀.

Option A:
Option A correctly uses the relationship between powers of 16 and the decimal system. It recognises that FF₁₆ is the maximum value in two hex digits, analogous to 255 in decimal. This makes it a standard boundary value in byte-oriented systems.

Option B:
Option B, F0₁₆, equals 15×16 + 0 = 240 in decimal, which is smaller than 255. It neglects the contribution of the least significant digit required to reach 255. Hence it is an underestimation.

Option C:
Option C, FE₁₆, represents 15×16 + 14 = 254 in decimal, which is close but still one less than the required value. This corresponds to 254₁₀, not 255₁₀.

Option D:
Option D, F1₁₆, corresponds to 15×16 + 1 = 241 in decimal, which again does not equal 255. Since only FF₁₆ gives 255, this option cannot be correct.

Pratyaksha is defined in Nyaya as knowledge generated by the direct contact of sense organs with their appropriate objects. Such cognition is immediate and does not depend on prior inference or testimony for its occurrence. It provides a basic and widely accepted source of information about the world. Thus, the sense-based knowledge mentioned in the stem is correctly termed pratyaksha.

Option A:
Option A, anumana, refers to inferential knowledge that arises from a sign and its invariable concomitance with the probandum and is therefore mediate rather than immediate. It presupposes pratyaksha or other pramanas for the establishment of vyapti. Hence anumana does not satisfy the condition of direct sense contact described in the stem.

Option B:
Option B is correct because pratyaksha literally means perception and is specifically tied to the operation of the senses in Nyaya. It captures the immediacy and non-inferential character of the cognition described. By isolating pratyaksha as a distinct pramana, Nyaya can examine conditions under which perceptual knowledge is valid or defective.

Option C:
Option C, upamana, is comparison-based knowledge where an unfamiliar object is understood through similarity with a known one and does not rely solely on fresh sense contact with that object. The key element there is recognition of likeness rather than mere sensory presence.

Option D:
Option D, sabda, denotes verbal testimony as a pramana, where one acquires knowledge by trusting the statements of reliable speakers or scriptures. It is mediated by language and authority, not by the bare functioning of the senses.

Statements A and B restate De Morgan’s laws, showing how negation distributes over “and” and “or”, C correctly defines logical equivalence in terms of matching truth values and D is true because De Morgan’s laws explicitly connect conjunction, disjunction and negation. Statement E is false since contradictory statements cannot both be true in any possible situation; one must be false whenever the other is true. Hence, the combination A, B, C and D only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because, although it lists three true statements, it omits D and thus does not explicitly say that De Morgan’s laws are the ones relating “and”, “or” and “not”. Without D, the named connection between these operators is not emphasised.

Option B:
Option B is also incomplete because it leaves out A and thereby fails to include the first De Morgan equivalence concerning the negation of “p and q”. That omission makes the description of the laws partial.

Option C:
Option C is correct as it bundles all four true statements, fully describing De Morgan’s laws and logical equivalence, while rejecting E, which mischaracterises contradictions. It aligns with the logical tools used in UGC NET reasoning.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it includes E, the false statement about contradictions, and omits C, the formal definition of logical equivalence. This combination mixes error with omission.

Let the original salaries be 7k and 9k. After adding ₹5600 to each, the new salaries become 7k + 5600 and 9k + 5600, which are in the ratio 9:11. So (7k + 5600)/(9k + 5600) = 9/11. Solving this equation gives k = 2800, so B’s original salary is 9k = 9 × 2800 = ₹25,200. Thus, ₹25,200 is the unique value that satisfies both the original and changed ratios.

Option A:
Option A, ₹19,600, equals 7 × 2800 and represents A’s original salary, not B’s. If we treat ₹19,600 as B’s original salary, we cannot express A’s salary as a smaller value in the ratio 7:9 while still matching the increment condition. Therefore it does not satisfy the relationship implied by the change from 7:9 to 9:11.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it matches the 9k term obtained from solving the proportion equation. Substituting ₹25,200 for B and ₹19,600 for A, we get new salaries ₹25,200 + ₹5600 = ₹30,800 and ₹19,600 + ₹5600 = ₹25,200, whose ratio is 25,200:30,800 = 9:11. This verifies that ₹25,200 is consistent with all given information.

Option C:
Option C, ₹28,000, would imply k = 3111.11… if we forced 9k = ₹28,000, which is not an integer and contradicts the natural-number scaling in the original ratio 7:9. Using that figure in the increment equation will not yield the new ratio 9:11. Hence, ₹28,000 cannot be B’s original salary.

Option D:
Option D, ₹30,800, is actually B’s new salary after the increment in the correct solution. Treating it as the original salary would lead to an even larger value after adding ₹5600 and a ratio that no longer matches 9:11. Therefore, ₹30,800 is not consistent with the given conditions.

Statements A, B, C and E accurately describe the threefold classification of inference in Indian logic and its exam relevance, while D is false. Pūrvavat moves from cause to effect, śeṣavat from effect to cause, and sāmānyato dṛṣṭa rests on general observation not limited to a single causal link. Far from being rejected, all three are taken as legitimate types of inference, and UGC NET frequently uses examples to test this distinction. Thus A, B, C, E only is the correct group of statements.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, ignoring that exam questions may directly ask students to classify examples according to these types. A, B, C only therefore does not fully satisfy the question requirements.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes all of the true descriptive and exam-related statements while excluding D, which wrongly claims that one type is rejected. This combination matches standard Indian philosophy texts.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it excludes A, losing the explanation of pūrvavat inference and thereby presenting only part of the scheme. B, C, E only does not cover the entire threefold division.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it leaves out B, failing to include śeṣavat, and so A, C, E only is incomplete.

B, C and E are correct; A and D are false. A simple proposition has no logical connective; compound propositions use connectives. “It is raining and it is cold” is compound; “It is raining” is simple. Recognising this helps symbolic translation in UGC NET.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it includes A, which wrongly says a simple proposition contains a connective.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E (exam translation relevance), which is true.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it includes all true statements (B, C, E) and excludes A and D (false).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes A and D, which are false.

Deductive reasoning starts from general premises or principles and derives specific conclusions from them. If the deductive argument is valid and its premises are true, the conclusion must be true. This feature of logical necessity is a hallmark of deduction. Hence reasoning from general to particular is correctly called deductive reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, inductive, works in the opposite direction, moving from particular cases to generalisations. Induction yields probabilistic support rather than necessary truth. Therefore it does not match the general-to-specific pattern described in the stem.

Option B:
Option B, analogical, relies on similarity between cases rather than on a general principle covering all relevant instances. Analogies suggest probable conclusions based on resemblance. Thus analogical reasoning is not defined by moving from general principles to specific conclusions.

Option C:
Option C correctly names deductive reasoning as the process of deriving specific claims from general assumptions. It preserves logical structure such that true premises guarantee a true conclusion. This makes deductive the best fit for the description in the question.

Option D:
Option D, causal, focuses on cause–effect relations and may be either inductive or deductive in structure. Causal reasoning does not by itself specify the direction from general to specific. Therefore it is not the most accurate label for the reasoning described here.

The Paris Agreement,adopted in 2015,sets a goal of keeping global temperature rise this century well below 2°C above pre industrial levels and pursuing efforts to limit it to 1.5°C. It relies on nationally determined contributions from all parties. The agreement represents a major global consensus on climate action. Therefore the description in the question points clearly to the Paris Agreement.

Option A:
The Rio Declaration consists of a set of principles on environment and development from the 1992 Earth Summit. It does not specify quantitative temperature limits. Hence it does not match the detailed climate target mentioned in the stem.

Option B:
The Doha Amendment relates to the second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol. While it adjusts emission targets,it is not framed around a specific temperature limit goal. Therefore it is not the best answer here.

Option C:
The Cartagena Protocol deals with biosafety concerning transboundary movement of living modified organisms. Its focus is on protecting biodiversity from risks posed by biotechnology,not global temperature control. Thus it is unrelated to the description given.

Option D:
The Paris Agreement explicitly articulates the 2°C and 1.5°C temperature thresholds as collective goals. Because the question cites this exact aim,it can only refer to the Paris Agreement.