UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

A is correct because the unit covers both numerical aptitude and logical reasoning aspects. C is true as data interpretation in NET uses various graphical and tabular forms. E is also correct since exposure to diverse question types improves speed and accuracy. B is wrong because series, analogies, classification and coding–decoding are explicitly part of mathematical reasoning and aptitude. D is wrong because purely logical items fall within the same unit and are not excluded. Hence B and D only are the wrong statements.

Option A:
Option A selects only B as wrong and ignores D, even though D incorrectly narrows the scope of mathematical aptitude to numeric questions. It therefore does not capture all incorrect statements.

Option B:
Option B chooses only D as wrong and overlooks B, which wrongly claims that several reasoning types are unrelated to Unit 5. So it also fails to identify the full set of wrong statements.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it identifies both B and D as misrepresenting the syllabus while leaving A, C and E as accurate descriptions of the breadth and preparation strategy for the unit.

Option D:
Option D incorrectly includes C among the wrong statements, even though data interpretation indeed uses tables and graphs, and thus misclassifies a true statement along with B and D.

Jain thinkers distinguish between direct and indirect forms of valid knowledge. The direct form is called pratyaksha and the indirect form is called paroksha. This basic division underlies further sub-classifications such as empirical and transcendental perception. Thus, the pair mentioned in the stem is pratyaksha and paroksha.

Option A:
Option A is correct because pratyaksha literally means what is "before the eyes" and stands in contrast to paroksha, which is "beyond the eyes" or indirect. The Jaina framework of pramanas begins from this fundamental bifurcation.

Option B:
Option B, sabda, is verbal testimony and is usually counted as a kind of paroksha rather than as the direct counterpart to it. It cannot complete the basic dichotomy introduced in the question.

Option C:
Option C, anumana, is inference, which again belongs on the side of indirect knowledge rather than being placed opposite to it.

Option D:
Option D, upamana, is comparison-based cognition and, like anumana and sabda, is treated as a mediated form of knowing, not as the direct pole of the distinction.

Statements A, B, D, E and F express a supportive and ethical approach to learning analytics, while C is clearly inappropriate. Dashboards and early alerts can guide students and teachers, but data must be interpreted in context rather than in a mechanical way. Encouraging goal setting and being transparent about data practices align with learner-centred analytics. Using analytics solely for surveillance and punishment contradicts recommended practice, hence C is excluded.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits B, which refers to instructors using analytics to identify low engagement and support students. Without B, the set misses an essential supportive use.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits D, which stresses contextual interpretation of analytics data. Without D, the set underplays how analytics must be understood in context.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A, which notes that dashboards can show students their progress. Excluding A makes the set incomplete.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it brings together progress visualisation, early support, context-aware interpretation, student self-regulation and ethical transparency. It rejects C’s punitive-only view, providing a balanced and learner-focused perspective on analytics.

Converting binary 1010 to decimal involves using positional weights of powers of 2. From right to left, the bits represent 1, 2, 4 and 8. The pattern 1010 has 1 in the 8's place and 1 in the 2's place, giving 8 + 2. Thus the decimal value is 10, making Option B correct.

Option A:
Option A corresponds to the binary pattern 1000, which equals 8 in decimal. While 8 is one of the place values used in the calculation, it alone is not sufficient to represent 10. Therefore, Option A is incomplete and incorrect.

Option B:
Option B is correct because 1010₂ means 1×8 + 0×4 + 1×2 + 0×1. This sums to 8 + 2 = 10. The value matches the required decimal equivalent of the given binary number.

Option C:
Option C refers loosely to 1100₂ if interpreted, which equals 8 + 4 = 12, not 10. Even if we do not map directly, 12 is clearly different from 10 and therefore cannot be the correct answer.

Option D:
Option D suggests 14, which would correspond to 1110₂ equal to 8 + 4 + 2. Since our binary number does not have three consecutive ones, 14 cannot be its decimal value.

Inter-rater reliability refers to the level of agreement or consistency between different observers, judges or raters who assess the same phenomenon using the same criteria. High inter-rater reliability indicates that scores are not heavily influenced by who does the rating, which strengthens confidence in the measurement process. It is especially important in observational research and performance assessments. Because the stem speaks about independent observers giving consistent ratings, inter-rater reliability is the appropriate term.

Option A:
Test–retest reliability deals with stability of scores over time for the same test administered on two occasions, not with agreement between different raters at one time. It does not capture the idea of multiple observers rating the same behaviour simultaneously. Therefore, test–retest reliability is not the best fit here.

Option B:
Inter-rater reliability is often quantified using statistics such as Cohen’s kappa or intraclass correlation coefficients, which adjust for agreement expected by chance. These indices provide evidence that the rating process is dependable and not idiosyncratic. This focus on agreement among observers corresponds directly to the stem.

Option C:
Internal consistency reliability assesses how well the items within a test measure the same construct, commonly estimated by Cronbach’s alpha or split-half methods. It is about agreement among items, not among raters, so internal consistency is not the correct completion.

Option D:
Parallel forms reliability evaluates consistency of scores across two equivalent versions of a test, again unrelated to multiple raters scoring the same responses. It does not address the rater-to-rater consistency highlighted in the question, which is why it is not appropriate here.

Green computing seeks to minimise the environmental impact of ICT through energy-efficient use, responsible procurement and safe disposal. Using power-saving features like sleep mode reduces electricity consumption, while certified e-waste recycling prevents toxic substances from entering the environment. Together, these actions contribute to sustainability without sacrificing functionality.

Option A:
Keeping devices powered on unnecessarily wastes energy and contributes to higher carbon emissions and electricity costs. It contradicts the goals of efficiency and conservation.

Option B:
Printing every document increases paper consumption and may lead to storage and disposal problems. Digital archiving and selective printing are more sustainable approaches.

Option C:
This option correctly combines energy management with environmentally sound end-of-life handling. It reflects an institutional commitment to both operational and ecological responsibility in ICT use.

Option D:
Rapidly discarding gadgets in regular waste streams increases e-waste and exposes workers and ecosystems to hazardous materials. It is the opposite of green computing.

Beneficence is an ethical principle that obliges researchers to promote the well-being of participants by designing studies that have favourable risk–benefit ratios. It requires careful assessment of potential harms, such as psychological distress or privacy breaches, and steps to reduce them as far as possible. At the same time, beneficence encourages researchers to pursue knowledge that can yield meaningful social or scientific benefits. Consequently, the requirement to maximise benefits and minimise harms is accurately captured by the principle of beneficence.

Option A:
Autonomy refers to respecting individuals’ rights to make informed, voluntary decisions about participation, typically operationalised through informed consent procedures. While it is crucial, it emphasises decision-making freedom rather than balancing harms and benefits, so autonomy is not the correct completion.

Option B:
Beneficence guides the design, conduct and monitoring of research, encouraging features such as debriefing, support services and careful inclusion/exclusion criteria to protect participants. It also supports ongoing ethical review when new risks are identified. These functions match closely with the description in the stem.

Option C:
Justice is the ethical principle concerned with fairness in the distribution of the burdens and benefits of research, ensuring that no group is systematically exploited or excluded. It does not primarily address the overall level of harm or benefit for individual participants, so justice is not appropriate here.

Option D:
Fidelity refers to maintaining trust, honesty and faithfulness in professional relationships, ensuring that promises made to participants are honoured. While important for ethics, it is not the principle specifically focused on risk–benefit balancing, so fidelity is not the best answer.

NEP 2020 warns that if technology-based education expands without addressing access to devices, connectivity and skills, existing socio-economic inequalities may become worse rather than better.

Option A:
Assuming that technology automatically benefits all learners equally ignores differences in income, geography and digital literacy that NEP explicitly highlights.

Option B:
This option is correct because it captures the policy’s caution that edtech must be planned with equity in mind so the digital divide is narrowed, not widened.

Option C:
Arguing that only urban students should use technology contradicts NEP’s aim of bridging rural–urban gaps through inclusive digital infrastructure.

Option D:
Suggesting that technology should replace teachers conflicts with NEP’s view of teachers as central actors, with technology supporting rather than substituting them.

Statements A, B and C describe the standard logical notions of validity and soundness in deductive reasoning, so they are all true together. In a valid deductive argument, true premises guarantee a true conclusion, and validity is a matter of form rather than factual correctness of premises. A sound argument must be both valid and have all true premises, which is exactly what C states. Statements D and E are false, because deductive conclusions do not always go beyond the information in the premises, and an argument can be valid yet unsound if its premises are false. Therefore the combination containing A, B and C only is correct.

Option A:
Option A includes A and B, which are both true, but it omits C, which correctly defines a sound argument as valid with true premises. Because C is also true and is left out, this option does not capture all the correct statements and is therefore incomplete.

Option B:
Option B selects B and C but leaves out A, so it fails to mention the fundamental guarantee that in a valid deductive argument true premises ensure a true conclusion. Since A is a correct statement about validity and is missing, this combination cannot be considered fully correct.

Option C:
Option C includes A, B and C but adds D, which is false because deductive reasoning need not extend beyond the information in the premises; often the conclusion is logically contained in them. Including D alongside the true statements makes the overall set incorrect.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it lists exactly those statements that are true: A about the truth-preserving nature of validity, B about structure, and C about soundness. It excludes D and E, which misrepresent deductive reasoning by suggesting that every valid argument is automatically sound and that conclusions must always go beyond the premises.

Proof by contradiction is an indirect method of proof where we assume that the statement to be proved is false and then logically deduce a contradiction. This contradiction shows that the assumption of falsity cannot hold, so the original statement must be true. It is often used in proving results that are difficult to handle directly. Hence, the method described in the question is called proof by contradiction.

Option A:
Proof by induction is a different technique that involves a base step and an inductive step to show that a statement holds for all natural numbers. It does not rely on assuming the negation of the statement and reaching a contradiction. Therefore, induction does not match the description in the question.

Option B:
Proof by contradiction is correct because it fits exactly the process of assuming the negation and deriving an impossibility or inconsistency. For example, classic proofs of the irrationality of √2 use this method. Understanding this technique helps students tackle theoretical questions in mathematical reasoning.

Option C:
Proof by construction involves explicitly constructing an example or object that satisfies the required properties. It does not necessarily involve any assumption that the statement is false. Therefore, construction is conceptually different from the method described in the stem.

Option D:
Proof by example is typically used to demonstrate the existence of at least one object with a given property, but it cannot prove statements that are meant to hold universally. It also does not depend on assuming the negation and producing a contradiction. Thus, this option is not correct for the method mentioned.

Equal real roots occur when the discriminant of a quadratic equation is zero. For the equation 2x² − kx + 8 = 0, the discriminant is b² − 4ac, which becomes k² − 4(2)(8). Setting this equal to zero gives k² − 64 = 0. Solving, we get k² = 64 and hence k = ±8, but the given options only include 8 as a valid choice. Therefore, k = 8 satisfies the equal roots condition using the standard discriminant rule.

Option A:
Option A, 4√2, when squared gives 32, and substituting into the discriminant k² − 64 yields 32 − 64 = −32, which is negative. A negative discriminant would produce complex, not equal real, roots.

Option B:
Option B leads to k² = 64, so the discriminant becomes 64 − 64 = 0. This matches the precise condition for equal real roots in a quadratic and is consistent with the formula b² − 4ac = 0.

Option C:
Option C, 16, gives k² = 256 and a discriminant of 256 − 64 = 192, which is positive and corresponds to two distinct real roots rather than equal ones.

Option D:
Option D, 16√2, squares to 512, making the discriminant 512 − 64 = 448. This again yields unequal real roots, not the required equal roots.

Statements A and B correctly describe linear inequalities in two variables as half-planes bounded by straight lines, and D accurately notes the convention of using dashed lines for strict inequalities. Statement E is also true because many optimisation and allocation problems, such as resource constraints, are modelled with systems of inequalities. Statement C is false because solution sets are typically infinite regions rather than single points. Therefore, the combination A, B, D and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct as it includes all true statements and excludes C, which wrongly restricts solutions to a single point. It reflects the graphical interpretation used for inequality questions at the NET level.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete since it omits E and thus does not emphasise that such inequalities can model practical constraints in optimisation problems like linear programming. Without E, the application aspect is missing.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it contains C, the claim about a single point, and also omits A, so it both admits a false statement and leaves out a key concept about half-planes. This combination does not represent the topic accurately.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes C and therefore endorses a misunderstanding of the size of solution sets, even though some of the other statements in the option are correct. The presence of C makes the option unacceptable.

Statements A, B and D are correct because resilient cities need infrastructure planning, consideration of vulnerable groups and effective early warning and preparedness mechanisms. Statement C is incorrect since contemporary resilience thinking explicitly includes social inclusion, governance and equity aspects. Thus, the combination A, B and D only, excluding C, is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it includes only A and B and leaves out D, even though D correctly identifies preparedness measures as part of resilience. Without D, the set of statements does not fully represent urban climate resilience strategies.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it adds C to A and B, treating C as true. C wrongly suggests that resilience neglects social inclusion, contradicting widely accepted frameworks such as resilient and inclusive cities.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because, although it includes B and D, it also accepts C which is wrong. The presence of C makes the combination logically inconsistent with the concept of resilience.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it groups the three statements that jointly describe infrastructure, vulnerability and preparedness aspects of climate-resilient cities while excluding the misleading statement C.

Statements A, C and D are correct, whereas B is incorrect. A is true because inclusive communication makes use of multiple modes—spoken, written, visual and tactile—to reach learners with diverse abilities. C is true since consulting learners about preferred supports respects their agency and provides practical information for planning. D is true as providing captions or sign language interpretation helps remove barriers for some learners. B is false because relying solely on spoken lectures does not meet the needs of learners with hearing impairments.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it combines A, C and D, capturing multimodal design, learner consultation and specific supports such as captions or sign language. It excludes B, which wrongly assumes that spoken lectures alone are sufficient for all learners. Therefore this combination reflects all and only the correct statements.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes A and C but omits D. By leaving out D, it fails to mention concrete supportive measures like captions and interpretation that are central to inclusive communication. Thus A and C only is incomplete.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it groups C and D only, leaving out A. Excluding A means ignoring the general principle of using multiple modes to reach diverse learners, which is foundational to inclusive practices. Hence C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it treats all four statements as correct, including B. As explained, B misrepresents inclusive education by asserting that spoken lectures alone are sufficient, disregarding learners with hearing impairments. This false claim prevents the combination from being correct.

The pattern begins with a multiplication by 2 and is then followed by repeated multiplication by 3. Specifically, 2 × 2 = 4, 4 × 3 = 12, 12 × 3 = 36, 36 × 3 = 108 and 108 × 3 = 324. To continue the series, we again multiply by 3, giving 324 × 3 = 972. This keeps the multiplicative behaviour consistent.

Option A:
Option A gives 960, which is not equal to 324 multiplied by any simple factor following the established rule. It does not preserve the sequence of multiplications by 3. Hence, 960 is not appropriate.

Option B:
Option B offers 966, which is 6 less than 324 × 3 and alters the multiplication pattern by subtracting an extra number. This is not supported by earlier terms. Therefore, 966 cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C suggests 968, which does not correspond to 324 multiplied by a constant ratio used earlier and appears arbitrary. This disrupts the regular multiplicative structure. Thus, 968 is not correct.

Option D:
Option D yields 972, which equals 324 × 3 and continues the run of factors from 3 onward. The series 2, 4, 12, 36, 108, 324, 972 stays well-organised under a clear rule. Therefore, 972 is the correct next term.