UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The rule states that each letter is replaced by its position in the alphabet and then all positions are summed. For NET, N is 14, E is 5 and T is 20. Adding these values gives 14 + 5 + 20 = 39. Since this computation matches the coding rule used in the example, 39 is the correct code for NET.

Option A:
Option A, 35, would require the sum of letter positions to be 35, but 14 + 5 + 20 clearly equals 39, not 35. This option therefore underestimates the actual total and ignores the correct arithmetic.

Option B:
Option B, 37, is also inconsistent with the required sum of positions, as there is no combination of N, E and T that would legitimately produce 37 under the stated rule. It likely arises from a miscalculation.

Option C:
Option C, 38, is again close to the correct answer but still incorrect because the precise sum 14 + 5 + 20 equals 39. In coding questions, even a small deviation from the rule’s outcome invalidates the option.

Option D:
Option D, 39, exactly matches the sum of the alphabetic positions of N, E and T. It faithfully applies the same coding procedure that produced 60 for WORD, making it the only option consistent with the defined rule.

Inclusive use of ICT aims to remove barriers so that learners with diverse abilities can participate fully in education. Assistive technologies and accessible design practices are central to this approach. They embody the principle of education for all. Therefore, the example given shows inclusive use of ICT.

Option A:
Option A is correct because inclusive accurately captures the intention to accommodate and support learners with disabilities through technology.

Option B:
Option B, competitive, emphasises rivalry and does not address accessibility concerns.

Option C:
Option C, exclusive, suggests shutting out certain groups, which contradicts the aim of the described practices.

Option D:
Option D, punitive, relates to punishment and has no connection with assistive technologies.

Environmental Impact Assessment is a systematic process used to identify and analyse the likely environmental consequences of a proposed project. It helps decision-makers consider alternatives, design mitigation measures and decide whether or not to approve a project. By assessing impacts in advance, EIA supports more informed and sustainable planning. Thus, its main purpose is to predict and evaluate environmental impacts before key decisions are taken, as stated in Option B.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because EIA does not aim to rush projects or bypass public consultation. In many jurisdictions, public participation is an integral part of the EIA process.

Option B:
Option B is correct as it highlights the anticipatory nature of EIA. Environmental consequences are examined before major decisions so that they can influence project design and approval.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because EIA is meant to complement, not replace, economic feasibility studies. Sound planning considers both economic and environmental aspects together.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since no development project can have absolutely zero environmental impact. EIA seeks to minimise negative impacts and enhance positive ones, not to guarantee total absence of change.

Statements A, B, C, D and F are correct because they distinguish prevention from control, highlight low-carbon options, show cost and impact benefits and recognise the interplay of technology, policy and behaviour. Statement E is false since green technologies can also create new jobs and transform employment patterns rather than always reducing opportunities. Thus, the combination that includes all the correct statements and excludes E is correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct as it offers a balanced view of cleaner technologies, showing both technical strategies and socio-economic interactions, while rejecting simplistic claims about inevitable job losses.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits F and therefore ignores how policies and user behaviour influence the actual environmental performance of technologies.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as it includes E, which assumes employment always declines with cleaner technologies, contrary to evidence from many green sectors.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it leaves out B, so it fails to distinguish end-of-pipe controls from cleaner production, even though that distinction is important in this unit.

Anupalabdhi is recognised by Bhatta Mimamsa as an independent pramana responsible for cognitions of non-existence or absence. It explains how we know that something is not present when appropriate conditions for its perception are in place but it is nevertheless not experienced. This non-perception is treated as a positive indicator of absence rather than as a mere lack of perception. Hence the pramana described in the stem is anupalabdhi.

Option A:
Option A, sabda, provides knowledge via verbal testimony and does not by itself address how we directly know that something is absent from a given locus. Relying only on testimony would not explain the immediacy of many absence cognitions.

Option B:
Option B, smriti, is memory and relies on past impressions; it cannot explain fresh awareness that an object is currently not present at a particular place.

Option C:
Option C is correct because anupalabdhi is specifically formulated to ground negative knowledge, such as knowing that a book is not on the table when one looks and fails to see it under normal conditions. By positing this pramana, Mimamsa can systematically handle negative existential judgments.

Option D:
Option D, laukika pratyaksha, pertains to ordinary perception of positive entities and cannot alone account for direct awareness of their absence, which is conceptually different.

Norm-referenced assessment interprets an individual’s score relative to the distribution of scores in a defined group. It answers questions such as whether a student scored above or below average compared to peers. The stem clearly mentions comparison with other students,which is characteristic of norm-referenced approaches.

Option A:
Criterion-referenced assessment judges performance against fixed learning standards or objectives,rather than against other students’ scores.

Option B:
Diagnostic assessment is used to identify specific learning difficulties and their causes,not primarily to compare one learner’s performance with others.

Option C:
Norm-referenced interpretation is common in competitive exams where ranks and percentiles are reported,matching the comparison described in the stem.

Option D:
Ipsative assessment compares a learner’s current performance with their own past performance,not with that of others,so it is not appropriate here.

Kevalanvayi inference relies on a vyapti that is confirmed entirely through cases where both hetu and sadhya are present together, with no example of hetu existing without sadhya. The universality of the relation appears from the absence of counter-instances. This pattern is especially clear in cases where the hetu is coextensive with the broader class of the sadhya. Thus the inference in the stem is kevalanvayi.

Option A:
Option A, kevalavyatireki, is based solely on negative instances where both hetu and sadhya are absent together, and has no positive sapaksha examples, making it the opposite configuration.

Option B:
Option B, anvayavyatireki, uses both positive and negative instances and therefore does not restrict itself to only positive evidence.

Option C:
Option C is correct because kevalanvayi literally means "only by affirmative concomitance" and corresponds exactly to the case where there is no locus of hetu without sadhya. It highlights a particularly strong pattern of pervasion.

Option D:
Option D, samanyatodrsta, is a temporal and relational classification dealing with general uniformities rather than the specific structure of evidence for vyapti.

Catuṣkoṭi, or tetralemma, lays out four exhaustive possibilities regarding a statement: affirmation, denial, both and neither. Madhyamaka thinkers like Nāgārjuna use this structure to probe and deconstruct philosophical positions. By showing the difficulties that arise for each alternative, they reveal the emptiness of fixed views. The tetralemma thus functions as a powerful dialectical tool in Buddhist logic.

Option A:
Option A correctly lists the four logical options that define the catuṣkoṭi scheme.

Option B:
Option B reformulates the pattern in terms of scriptural and rational authority, which does not match the classical logical structure.

Option C:
Option C restricts the options to modes of cognition, whereas catuṣkoṭi is framed for general propositions.

Option D:
Option D uses permanence as a specific content area; catuṣkoṭi can be applied to such topics but is not defined by that single contrast.

Statements A, B and D correctly express principles of writing instructional objectives. A is true because action verbs such as “explain”, “classify” or “solve” describe observable behaviours. B is true as conditions (for example, “given a graph…”) clarify the context of performance. D is true because replacing vague verbs with specific ones makes objectives clearer and more assessable. C is wrong since specifying performance criteria helps teachers and learners know what level is expected, and E is wrong because overly broad, non-measurable objectives cannot effectively guide teaching or assessment. Thus C and E only are the wrong statements and form the correct answer.

Option A:
Option A picks C only and overlooks E, even though E also misguides objective writing by favouring unmeasurable statements. Since both C and E are incorrect, C only is not a complete answer.

Option B:
Option B selects E only and ignores C, which downplays the importance of performance standards in objectives. Because two statements are wrong, E only cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C groups B, C and E as wrong, but B is actually a correct guideline about including conditions in objectives. Including a true statement among wrong ones makes this option invalid.

Option D:
Option D correctly identifies C and E as the statements that conflict with established principles of behavioural objective writing. It keeps A, B and D separate as accurate statements, so C and E only is the correct option.

Option E adds A to the wrong set, even though A clearly describes a key feature of well-written objectives. Misclassifying A makes A, C and E only unacceptable.

The hexadecimal system has base 16, and 16 equals 2⁴. This means each hex digit corresponds exactly to a group of four bits. This makes hexadecimal a convenient shorthand for binary because each nibble maps to one hex digit.

Option A:
Option A correctly uses the identity 16 = 2⁴ to justify the four-bit groupings. It explains why 4-bit nibbles are natural units when representing binary values in hexadecimal form.

Option B:
Option B, 3, is associated with the octal system, where 8 = 2³ and each digit maps to three bits. It does not apply to base 16.

Option C:
Option C, 2, would yield only four combinations, insufficient to represent 16 different hex symbols (0–9 and A–F).

Option D:
Option D, 8, overestimates the bits per hex digit and would allow 256 combinations, which is far beyond the 16 needed.

Statements A, B, D and E are correct because they capture the core definition and policy tools of a green economy. It links well-being and equity with reduced environmental risks, uses investments in low-carbon and efficient sectors, employs fiscal reforms and supports SMEs and innovation. Statement C is false because employment and decent work are central to just transition debates, and F is false because green economy strategies are explicitly related to SDGs on energy, industry, consumption and more. Thus, the correct combination is A, B, D and E only.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it leaves out D and E, thereby ignoring crucial instruments and actors in green transitions. It focuses only on goals and investment directions without mentioning supportive fiscal and enterprise policies.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it groups all the true statements and excludes C and F, which marginalise employment and SDG linkages. It presents a balanced view of green economy as both environmental and socio-economic in orientation.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes F and omits A. Accepting F would sever the clearly stated connections between green economy and SDGs, while leaving out A removes the foundational definition relating well-being and equity.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it again includes F and omits B. This removes the important role of renewable energy and sustainable transport from the picture while retaining a false claim about SDG disconnection.

A, C, D and E are correct; B is false. Appeals to authority can be reasonable if the authority is relevant and expert; they become fallacious when irrelevant (e.g., celebrities on technical issues). UGC NET tests spotting relevance and expertise.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes the true, nuanced statements and excludes B (the incorrect blanket claim).

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits C (checking expertise), which is true and central.

Option C:
Option C is incomplete because it omits A (proper authority can be reasonable), which is true.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes B (false).

Horizontal communication occurs between members of the same hierarchical level to coordinate activities and share information. Teachers in the same department generally occupy similar positions. When they discuss internal assessments,the information moves laterally,so it is horizontal communication.

Option A:
Upward communication would flow from teachers to the principal or higher authorities.

Option B:
Horizontal communication is lateral exchange among peers at the same level,so it suits teacher to teacher coordination.

Option C:
Diagonal communication would cut across both levels and units,such as a teacher contacting finance staff directly.

Option D:
External communication refers to messages between the institution and outside stakeholders,which is not the case here.

A base-8 number system uses eight distinct digit symbols, typically 0 through 7. Such a system is called the octal number system. Octal is sometimes used as a compact representation of binary by grouping bits in threes. Hence, the correct alternative name for base 8 is octal.

Option A:
Option A, binary, refers to base 2 and is limited to digits 0 and 1. This does not align with the eight digits used in base 8.

Option B:
Option B is correct because "oct" denotes eight, reflecting the eight symbols 0–7 used in this system. It is a well-established term in digital electronics.

Option C:
Option C, decimal, corresponds to base 10 with digits 0–9. This system is unrelated to base 8 in terms of the number of symbols.

Option D:
Option D, hexadecimal, is base 16 and uses both digits and letters up to F. It uses many more symbols than an octal system.

The policy restructures HEIs into three types based on their functions. Type 1 focuses on research and teaching, Type 2 primarily on high-quality teaching with some research and Type 3 on degree-granting colleges that may evolve into universities. Affiliation is to be phased out over time.

Option A:
This option summarises the three-category model exactly as NEP frames it.

Option B:
Schools and coaching centres fall outside the HEI types described for higher education.

Option C:
Affiliated colleges as a separate category are to be transformed into autonomous degree-granting institutions.

Option D:
Distance centres may exist within these types but are not themselves the basic institutional categories.