UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

The statement compares teaching to gardening and draws on similarities in care and growth to highlight how students need guidance. This pattern of arguing from likeness between two domains is characteristic of analogical reasoning. It does not claim a strict logical necessity but instead uses a familiar case to illuminate another, making the comparison persuasive through shared features.

Option A:
Option A would require a structure where the conclusion necessarily follows from premises, which is not the case here.

Option B:
Option B correctly classifies the comparison as an analogy that transfers understanding from gardening to teaching.

Option C:
Option C would involve numerical data and probabilities, which are absent from the example.

Option D:
Option D focuses on cause and effect, which is not the primary structure in this metaphorical comparison.

Analogical reasoning draws a conclusion about one domain by comparing it to another domain that is better understood. In the brain–computer example, we use the known structure and function of computers as an analogy to reason about how the brain might work. The inference depends on perceived similarities rather than strict deductive necessity. This is a classic case of analogical reasoning used in science and philosophy.

Option A:
Option A explicitly sets up a comparison and then transfers insights from the analogue (computer) to the target (brain), which is the essence of argument by analogy.

Option B:
Option B is a deductive argument using class inclusion and does not rely on similarity between different domains.

Option C:
Option C is a standard conditional inference, “if p then q; p, so q,” which exemplifies deduction, not analogy.

Option D:
Option D simply states a definition without comparing it to anything else, so no analogical structure is present.