UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, D and E correctly describe the threefold division of inference, whereas F is false. Pūrvavat and śeṣavat explicitly connect cause and effect in opposite directions, and sāmānyato-dṛṣṭa depends on regular associations not tied to a clear causal order. All three are grounded in vyāpti, the invariable relation between hetu and sādhya, even if the way we become aware of that relation differs. Exam questions may present familiar examples and ask which type is illustrated. Hence A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, failing to mention how these distinctions are used in UGC NET questions. Although A, B, C and D are conceptually correct, they lack the explicit exam connection. Therefore this option is not fully satisfactory.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it includes F, which denies the role of vyāpti in these inferences. In Nyaya, the reliability of any anumāna depends on an underlying vyāpti, so claiming independence contradicts the theory. Including F makes the combination inconsistent.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it leaves out A and includes F, thus losing the description of pūrvavat while accepting the false claim about vyāpti. Without A, one of the three types is not represented, and with F, the relation to invariable concomitance is misdescribed.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it gathers all true statements about the threefold classification and its testing in exams while excluding the one statement that wrongly severs the link with vyāpti. It therefore matches the Indian logic account used in UGC NET.

The post hoc fallacy is summarised by the phrase “after this, therefore because of this”. It mistakenly infers a causal relation merely from temporal succession. Just because one event comes after another does not mean the first caused the second. Hence the fallacy described in the stem is correctly called post hoc.

Option A:
Option A, straw man, involves misrepresenting an opponent’s position to make it easier to attack. It does not concern temporal order or causal assumptions. Therefore straw man is not the fallacy being described.

Option B:
Option B, ad hominem, attacks the character of a person instead of addressing the argument. This is a different kind of informal fallacy unrelated to event sequence. Thus ad hominem is not appropriate here.

Option C:
Option C correctly names the post hoc fallacy, which draws a causal conclusion solely from the fact that one event follows another. It warns against confusing correlation with causation. Therefore post hoc is the best answer.

Option D:
Option D, false analogy, bases a conclusion on an inappropriate or weak comparison between cases. While it is an informal fallacy, it does not rely on temporal succession. Hence false analogy cannot be the correct choice.

Logical reasoning requires distinguishing mere sequence from genuine causal connection. Just because the street was wet after the parade does not mean the parade caused the wetness; it could have rained or a water tanker might have washed the road. The argument commits a post hoc type error by inferring causation solely from “after.” The appropriate criticism is that it overlooks alternative explanations and treats temporal order as sufficient evidence of cause.

Option A:
Option A assumes that any earlier event causes any later event, which is an obvious exaggeration and not a careful logical assessment.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies the confusion between “after” and “because of,” and points out the neglect of other plausible causes for the wet street.

Option C:
Option C wrongly claims that the argument is valid because wet streets always follow parades, a premise that is neither stated nor universally true.

Option D:
Option D mistakes factual reference to events for soundness; soundness also requires a valid inference from true premises, which is missing here.

A necessary condition is one without which a particular event cannot occur. Its absence guarantees that the event will not happen. However, its presence alone may not be enough to bring about the event because other conditions might also be required. Thus the description in the stem matches the concept of a necessary condition.

Option A:
Option A, sufficient, names a condition that by itself guarantees the occurrence of the event. A sufficient condition need not be required in every case. Therefore it does not fit the idea of something that must be present but may not be enough.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies necessary as the label for conditions that are required but not independently adequate. If the necessary condition is missing, the event cannot occur. Hence this option is the best match for the stem.

Option C:
Option C, trivial, suggests an unimportant or insignificant factor and has no precise technical meaning in logical conditional analysis. A trivial condition might be present or absent without affecting the event. Thus trivial is not appropriate here.

Option D:
Option D, accidental, refers to something happening by chance and does not capture a stable logical dependency. An accidental factor is not necessarily required whenever the event occurs. Therefore accidental condition is not what the stem describes.

Statements A, B and C cover the main patterns tested in cause–effect questions: one being cause of the other, both being independent causes of a common outcome and both being effects of a hidden common cause. Statement D is false because mere temporal closeness does not guarantee causation. Statement E is also false since some questions classify the pair as unrelated. Therefore, A, B and C only form the correct set of statements.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits C, which correctly recognises cases where two statements are joint effects of a single cause.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect as it adds D, which conflates temporal sequence with causation, and still lacks C.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it brings together the three valid patterns of interpretation while excluding D and E.

Option D:
Option D is wrong since it includes E (false) and omits B (independent-cause case).

A sufficient condition is one whose presence guarantees that a certain event or property will occur, even though the event might also arise in other ways. If the sufficient condition holds, the specified outcome must follow. This notion is central in both logic and causal reasoning where we want to know what factors are enough to bring about a result. Hence the condition described in the stem is a sufficient condition.

Option A:
Option A, necessary, refers to a condition that must be present for an event to occur but may not be enough on its own to produce it. Necessity emphasises requirement, not guarantee, and so does not match the wording in the question.

Option B:
Option B is correct because sufficiency highlights that the condition is adequate on its own to secure the event. For example, being a square is sufficient for being a rectangle, since every square is automatically a rectangle. This captures the sense of “enough by itself” mentioned in the stem.

Option C:
Option C, accidental, suggests that a factor accompanies an event by chance and does not reliably bring it about. Accidental conditions fail to meet the requirement of guaranteeing the outcome.

Option D:
Option D, remote, implies distance or weak relevance and is not a standard logical term for describing the relation between conditions and events. It does not indicate any guarantee of occurrence.

A necessary condition is one without which a particular event cannot occur. If the necessary condition is absent, the event is impossible. However, the necessary condition by itself may not be enough to bring about the event, as other conditions may also be required. This description is exactly what the stem presents, so it is a necessary condition.

Option A:
Option A is correct because the word necessary highlights the idea of requirement rather than guarantee. For example, oxygen is necessary for ordinary fire, but oxygen alone is not sufficient to produce fire. This illustrates the difference captured in the question.

Option B:
Option B, sufficient, refers to a condition that, when present, ensures the occurrence of an event by itself. A sufficient condition may not be required in every case, unlike a necessary one. Therefore sufficient condition does not match the focus on "must be present" in the stem.

Option C:
Option C, remote, suggests distance or weak connection and is not a standard technical expression in conditional logic. It does not tell us anything clear about necessity or sufficiency. Consequently remote is not the right answer.

Option D:
Option D, accidental, implies that something happens by chance and does not entail a stable conditional relation. An accidental factor may or may not be present without systematically affecting the event. Thus accidental condition does not fit the description.

A necessary condition is one without which a given event or property cannot occur. If the necessary condition is absent, the event is impossible. However, simply having the necessary condition may not be enough to bring about the event because additional conditions might also be required. Thus the condition described in the stem is a necessary condition.

Option A:
Option A, sufficient, would mean that the condition by itself is enough to produce the event whenever it occurs. This emphasises guarantee rather than requirement, and so does not fit the stem’s description.

Option B:
Option B, causal, indicates that a factor plays some role in producing an effect, but not every cause is necessary and not every necessary condition is a direct cause. The term is therefore too vague for the precise logical relation required.

Option C:
Option C is correct because necessity focuses on what must hold whenever the event occurs. For instance, having oxygen is necessary for ordinary fire, even though oxygen alone cannot start a fire without fuel and ignition. This illustrates the idea that presence is required but not by itself sufficient.

Option D:
Option D, random, connotes lack of systematic relation and is the opposite of being required. A random factor is neither necessary nor reliably connected to the event.