UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, D and F correctly describe similarities and differences between Nyaya and Western approaches, while E is false. Western syllogisms use a three-part structure, whereas Nyaya sets out five members to make explicit the thesis, reason, example, application and conclusion. This expanded form highlights vyāpti and its relation to the pakṣa, and exam items may unpack common examples into these steps. Both traditions, however, aim to justify conclusions with reasons. E is wrong because Western logic can represent long chains of reasoning by linking several arguments. Thus A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct since it draws a balanced comparison, showing structural differences without exaggerating them into absolute opposition. It also ties the theory to typical UGC NET questions. By excluding E, it avoids the mistaken idea that Western logic is limited to only three-step arguments.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits F, missing the important concluding point that both traditions share the goal of valid reasoning. Without F, the comparison sounds more divisive than it actually is. Therefore A, B, C and D only is not fully adequate.

Option C:
Option C is wrong as it includes E, treating Western logic as incapable of handling longer chains, which is clearly false in both classical and modern systems. Even simple derivations can involve many steps. Including E makes the combination unreliable.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it leaves out C and includes E, thereby ignoring the explicit role of vyāpti while accepting a false limitation on Western arguments. This mixture does not accurately reflect comparative logic.

Traditional Nyāya presents inference with five avayavas: thesis, reason, example, application and conclusion. This makes the inferential structure, illustration and application to the subject explicit, especially in parārthānumāna. By contrast, the standard Western syllogism is typically compressed into two premises and a conclusion, omitting separate steps for example and application. This difference in explicitness and number of steps is often highlighted in comparative studies of logic.

Option A:
Option A is false because Nyāya does have a middle term (hetu), analogous to the Western middle term; both systems rely on a mediating concept.

Option B:
Option B accurately notes that Nyāya traditionally employs a five membered verbal form, while Western syllogism uses a three proposition structure.

Option C:
Option C misdescribes both traditions historically; each began with verbal formulations long before later symbolic notation.

Option D:
Option D incorrectly claims that Nyāya avoids universals; in fact, universal statements are crucial for vyāpti and for many of its premises.

Statements A, B and C accurately describe key similarities and differences between Nyaya’s five-member syllogism and Aristotelian syllogisms, and E is true about syllabus emphasis. D is false because Aristotelian syllogisms often involve universal propositions. Thus A, B, C and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits E.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (five-member vs three-proposition contrast).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B (shared middle-term idea), so it is incomplete.