UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Savyabhicāra hetu, also known as the irregular or inconsistent middle, fails to establish a conclusion because it appears in instances where the probandum is present and in other instances where it is absent. Since vyāpti demands an invariable relation, such a middle term cannot serve as a reliable indicator. The presence of counterexamples undermines the inferential connection, making the hetu fallacious.

Option A:
Option A describes a hetu that is simply absent in the pakṣa, which is a different kind of defect related to asiddha or unproved middle.

Option B:
Option B describes a proper hetu with correct vyāpti; if the reason is always accompanied by the sādhya, it is sound, not irregular.

Option C:
Option C correctly captures the irregularity of the middle term that appears in both sādhya-possessing and sādhya-lacking cases, destroying the necessary invariance for valid inference.

Option D:
Option D introduces scriptural testimony, which relates to the source of the reason, not to the pattern of its occurrence across instances.