Statements A, B, C and D accurately describe reductio ad absurdum and its relation to prasaṅga, while E is false. In reductio, we assume the opposite of what we want to prove and derive a contradiction or absurd consequence, forcing us to reject that assumption and accept its negation. Buddhist prasaṅga uses a similar technique against an opponent’s thesis. However, merely having contradictory premises does not automatically constitute a proper reductio; the contradiction must be shown to arise from the specific assumption under test. Thus E is the only incorrect statement.
Option A:
Option A is correct because it singles out E as the sole wrong statement and preserves the correct description of reductio and its dialectical use in A, B, C and D. This option mirrors the structured method taught for proof by contradiction.
Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it also marks C as wrong even though C correctly states what is concluded when a contradiction arises from the assumed negation. C and E only therefore misclassifies a crucial step in reductio as incorrect.
Option C:
Option C is wrong because it treats D as wrong along with E, despite D accurately noting the use of prasaṅga in Buddhist debates. D and E only thus fails to respect the historical connection.
Option D:
Option D is also incorrect since it includes B among the wrong statements, even though B correctly explains that we derive a contradiction or unacceptable consequence from the assumption. B, D and E only therefore cannot be accepted as the correct answer.
Comment Your Answer
Please login to comment your answer.
Sign In
Sign Up
Answers commented by others
No answers commented yet. Be the first to comment!