UGCNET Questions

A correct deductive pattern guarantees the truth of the conclusion whenever the premises are true. The form “If it rains, the ground gets wet; it is raining; therefore the ground will get wet” is a classic example of modus ponens. Here the condition and its antecedent are both asserted, making the consequent logically necessary. There is no gap between the premises and the conclusion in such a structure.

Option A:
Option A has the structure “If P then Q; P; therefore Q,” which is modus ponens, a standard valid deductive form where the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true.

Option B:
Option B, “The ground is wet, so it must have rained,” affirms the consequent and concludes the antecedent. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, because wet ground can have other causes.

Option C:
Option C makes a prediction based on temporal repetition, which is inductive rather than deductive.

Option D:
Option D treats a cloudy sky as a sufficient condition for rain, which is not logically guaranteed and again represents an inductive guess, not a valid deduction.

Premise indicators are words that signal reasons or evidence being offered in support of a conclusion. “Because” usually introduces the supporting statements that explain why the main claim should be accepted. Recognising such indicators helps in breaking an argument into premises and conclusion. In contrast, words like “therefore” typically introduce conclusions.

Option A:
Option A, “therefore,” is widely used to introduce the conclusion rather than the reasons.

Option B:
Option B, “hence,” also serves as a conclusion indicator much like “therefore.”

Option C:
Option C, “because,” normally precedes justification or evidence and thus functions as a premise indicator.

Option D:
Option D, “thus,” again signals a result or conclusion, not the supporting premises.

In an argument, the conclusion is the main claim that the author wants the reader to accept on the basis of supporting reasons. Here, the factual observation about students who attend regularly and score high functions as the evidence. From this observation, the writer infers a general statement about the role of regular attendance in academic success. That generalised statement is what the premises are intended to support, so it is the conclusion.

Option A:
Option A presents the general claim that is being supported by the preceding observation, not the observation itself. It captures the “therefore” part of the reasoning and summarises the main point the argument is trying to establish.

Option B:
Option B reports the empirical basis of the argument and therefore functions as a premise, not the final point to be proved.

Option C:
Option C adds the stronger claim that success always requires attendance, which goes beyond the stated conclusion and is not actually asserted.

Option D:
Option D introduces a claim about marks being the only sign of success, which is not mentioned in the argument and cannot be its conclusion.