UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, E and F are correct, while D is incorrect. Pakṣa is indeed the subject where the probandum is to be shown, and vyāpti states the invariable relation between hetu and sādhya. Sapakṣa are positive instances with both reason and probandum, and a proper hetu must appear in all such cases and in none of the negative instances, vipakṣa. If hetu appears in vipakṣa, its exclusiveness is broken, making the reason fallacious. Statement D is wrong because vipakṣa are cases where the sādhya is absent and, for a proper hetu, the reason should also be absent there.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits F, thereby ignoring the important consequence that hetu’s presence in vipakṣa leads to a fallacy. While A, B, C and E describe key concepts, they do not mention what happens when the exclusiveness condition is violated. Thus A, B, C and E only cannot be the full set of correct statements.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it combines A, B, C, E and F, reflecting the standard Nyaya account of pakṣa, vyāpti, sapakṣa, vipakṣa and the condition of a proper hetu. It excludes D, which wrongly describes vipakṣa as places where hetu is present but sādhya is absent. The option therefore matches the real structure of Indian inference theory.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it accepts D along with the other statements. By treating D as correct, it suggests that hetu is present in vipakṣa, which is the very situation that undermines the validity of the reason. Including D therefore makes this option inconsistent with the conditions for a proper hetu.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it drops B, a central explanation of vyāpti, and keeps A, C, E and F only. Without acknowledging vyāpti explicitly, the picture of inference is incomplete, and the presence of D’s error in other options confirms that this reduced set does not accurately represent all true statements.