UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The pattern "if p, then q; not p; therefore not q" is invalid because q may still be true even if p is false. This error is known as the fallacy of denying the antecedent. It mistakenly treats the conditional as though p were a necessary condition for q, which the original statement does not assert. Therefore the fallacy described is denying the antecedent.

Option A:
Option A, affirming, corresponds to affirming the consequent, a different fallacy with the form "if p, then q; q; therefore p". It does not match the structure that begins with "not p". Hence affirming is not correct here.

Option B:
Option B is correct because the erroneous step is to deny the antecedent p and then incorrectly deny the consequent q, assuming q depends exclusively on p. This misinterpretation of the conditional leads to an invalid inference.

Option C:
Option C, strengthening, is not a standard label for any recognised formal fallacy in this context and does not capture the problem of negating p. It therefore cannot be the answer.

Option D:
Option D, converting, might suggest swapping antecedent and consequent, but the structure in the stem is not about such reversal; it is about drawing an unwarranted negative conclusion from the denial of p. Thus converting is inappropriate.

Statements A and B correctly identify modus ponens and modus tollens as valid argument forms, and D correctly states that denying the antecedent is invalid even though it superficially resembles a valid pattern. Statement E is also true because exam questions often depend on distinguishing valid inferences from fallacies. Statement C is false since affirming the consequent is a classic fallacy; from “if p then q” and “q” one cannot conclude “p” with certainty. Therefore, the combination A, B, D and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E and therefore does not highlight the practical importance of recognising these forms when evaluating arguments in tests like UGC NET. Without E, the applied dimension of the topic is not fully expressed.

Option B:
Option B is also incomplete as it leaves out A, failing to mention explicitly the widely used valid pattern of modus ponens, which is central to many logical derivations. This omission weakens the conceptual coverage.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes C, which treats affirming the consequent as valid, and thereby endorses a logical fallacy. Even though A, B and D are true, the presence of C invalidates the combination.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it gathers the two standard valid forms, identifies denying the antecedent as invalid and notes the value of recognising these patterns in reasoning tasks, while excluding C, the misclassification of affirming the consequent. It matches the logic syllabus for UGC NET.

Statements A, B, D, E and F correctly describe standard conditional argument forms, whereas C is false. Modus ponens and modus tollens are canonical valid patterns used widely in logical reasoning. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent match the invalid forms described and are classified as formal fallacies. Recognising these contrasts is exactly what many UGC NET items on conditionals are testing. Option A therefore includes all and only the correct statements.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it collects the two valid forms, identifies the two formal fallacies and notes their exam relevance while excluding the mistaken claim in C. It captures how conditional reasoning is structured in formal logic. By omitting C, it avoids treating the invalid pattern affirming the consequent as valid. Thus this option aligns perfectly with textbook accounts of conditional argument forms.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes C, which wrongly calls affirming the consequent a valid argument form. Once q is known, we cannot simply infer p on that basis without additional information. Including this invalid form among correct ones means the combination cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it omits A and adds C, treating the invalid pattern as correct while losing the explicit description of modus ponens. This distorts the central distinction between valid and fallacious reasoning with conditionals. As a result, the option fails to represent the set of true statements.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it leaves out F, ignoring the practical point about how exam questions use these forms, and it still includes only a subset of the true statements. Without F, the role of these patterns in UGC NET reasoning is not fully reflected. Hence this option is incomplete.