UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

A, B and C correctly describe causal reasoning (difference-making, often-inductive inference, and the need to consider alternatives). E is true because UGC NET DI sets may test weak vs strong causal claims. D is false since correlation alone does not always establish causation. Hence A, B, C and E only are correct.

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

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E (exam context).

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes D (false) and omits A (true).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B (inductive nature) and includes D (false).

The post hoc fallacy occurs when someone assumes that because one event happens after another, the first event must have caused the second. Here, improvement in performance follows the introduction of a new method, and causation is asserted purely based on this sequence. The reasoning ignores other possible factors such as increased practice, changes in assessment or better resources. This unwarranted leap from temporal order to causal claim is exactly what the Latin label “post hoc ergo propter hoc” names.

Option A:
Option A, slippery slope, suggests a chain reaction of events leading to extreme consequences, which is not the pattern here.

Option B:
Option B identifies the specific error of inferring causation only from the fact that one event came after another, matching the structure of the argument given.

Option C:
Option C, hasty generalisation, involves drawing a broad conclusion from too few or unrepresentative cases, which is related but distinct from post hoc reasoning.

Option D:
Option D, false analogy, rests on inappropriate comparison between two cases, which is not central to this example.

The post hoc fallacy, often summarised as “after this, therefore because of this”, mistakes mere temporal order for genuine causation. It assumes that because event A precedes event B, A must have caused B, ignoring other possible causes or coincidental sequences. Proper causal reasoning requires additional evidence such as mechanisms, controlled comparisons or repeated patterns, not just timing. Thus the error described in the stem is the post hoc fallacy.

Option A:
Option A, slippery slope, warns that a small initial step will lead inevitably to a chain of increasingly severe consequences, usually without adequate support for the inevitability. It does not centre on inferring causation solely from temporal sequence.

Option B:
Option B is correct because post hoc specifically captures the confusion between succession in time and causation. Recognising this fallacy reminds us that correlation, especially when inferred only from “came after”, is not sufficient to establish cause.

Option C:
Option C, red herring, distracts from the main issue by introducing an irrelevant topic, but it does not rely on any assumption about the order of events.

Option D:
Option D, weak analogy, draws an inference from a comparison where the similarities are not strong or relevant enough to support the conclusion; again, it is different from the time-based error in question.

Statements A, B, C and E are correct, while D and F are false. Causal reasoning does seek contributing factors, post hoc identifies a common fallacy based on mere sequence, and controlled comparison helps isolate causal variables. Exam questions often ask which explanation best accounts for observed facts, which is captured in E. D is wrong because temporal order alone does not prove causation, and F is wrong because correlation does not automatically establish a causal link. Thus A, B, C and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, overlooking the way UGC NET uses cause and effect items to test evaluative skills. Although A, B and C are conceptually sound, they do not reflect this exam context. Hence A, B and C only cannot be chosen.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it drops A, failing to state what causal reasoning tries to do in general. Having only B, C and E leaves out the overall idea of causation itself. This omission makes the option conceptually weaker than the full set of correct statements.

Option C:
Option C is correct since it unites the description of causal inquiry, a classic fallacy, a methodological tool and the exam style of questioning. By excluding D and F, it also protects against common confusions between sequence, correlation and causation. Therefore this option fits both theory and practice.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it includes D, which absurdly claims that temporal succession always suffices for causation, and omits C’s point about controlled comparison. Accepting D leads to many false causal attributions. So A, B, D and E only is not a valid answer.