UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B and C correctly describe viruddha and bādhita as fallacious reasons, and E notes their exam relevance. D is false because viruddha hetu is defective, not ideal. Thus A, B, C and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes D (false).

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (core definition of viruddha).

Option D:
Option D is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D.

Statements A, B, C, D and E accurately describe standard types of hetvābhāsa in Indian logic, while F is false. Savyabhicāra points to irregular concomitance, viruddha reverses the intended conclusion, and asiddha is unestablished in the pakṣa. Bādhita is overridden by a stronger means of knowledge, and satpratipakṣa faces an equally strong counter-reason. A proper hetu must avoid, not exemplify, these defects, so F misstates the requirement. Therefore A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, leaving out the important case of satpratipakṣa where a counter-reason neutralises the original hetu. While A, B, C and D are true, they do not cover the full range of named fallacies in the list. Thus this option is not adequate.

Option B:
Option B is wrong because it includes F, which claims that a good reason should display one of these defects. In Indian logic, such defects mark the hetu as fallacious, not acceptable. Including F therefore contradicts the central idea of hetvābhāsa.

Option C:
Option C is correct since it assembles all five accurate descriptions of fallacious reasons and excludes the single statement that reverses the standard condition for a proper hetu. It offers a comprehensive view consistent with Nyaya accounts and exam expectations. Hence this is the right answer.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits A and instead includes F, thereby losing the description of savyabhicāra while endorsing the wrong requirement about valid hetu. This combination fails to reflect the recognised structure of Indian logical fallacies.

A, B, C and E correctly describe recognised hetvābhāsas and common exam patterns. D is wrong because asādhāraṇa hetu is not “common to many instances”; it is too restricted/unique, which makes it defective rather than ideal. Thus D alone is the incorrect statement.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it identifies D as the only wrong statement while treating A, B, C and E as correct.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it wrongly includes C as a wrong statement; C correctly describes bādhita hetu.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it wrongly includes A as wrong; A accurately characterises savyabhicāra (irregular) hetu.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it wrongly includes E as wrong; E correctly states a common exam pattern.

All six statements together give a coherent picture of fallacious and valid reasons in Indian logic, so A, B, C, D, E and F are correct. Hetvābhāsa is indeed an apparently sound but defective reason, and asiddha and viruddha are classic examples where the reason is unestablished or proves the opposite. Satpratipakṣa and bādhita identify reasons neutralised or overridden by equally strong or stronger knowledge. The final statement summarises the threefold condition for a valid hetu: presence in the pakṣa, presence in sapakṣa and absence in vipakṣa. Hence every statement listed is accurate, making this the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it stops at A, B, C and D, leaving out E and F, which also state correct and important aspects of Indian inference theory. Without bādhita hetu and the positive conditions of a valid hetu, the account of reasons and fallacies is incomplete. Therefore A, B, C and D only cannot be accepted as correct.

Option B:
Option B is still incomplete since it omits F, the summary condition for a valid hetu, even though it adds E. While E is correct about contradiction by stronger pramāṇa, leaving out F fails to mention the standard threefold test for a proper reason. Thus A, B, C, D and E only does not capture the full set of true statements.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it includes all six accurate statements that together describe types of hetvābhāsa and the structural requirements of a valid hetu. There is no falsehood among A–F, so the only way to select all correct statements is to choose the option listing all of them. This makes Option C the right answer by matching the full, correct set.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it leaves out A, which defines hetvābhāsa itself, and thus ignores the overarching concept under which the listed fallacies are grouped. Even though B, C, D, E and F are true, omitting A means the combination is not the complete set of correct statements in the question.

A satpratipakṣa hetu faces an opponent’s reason of equal strength that supports the negation of the original sādhya. When both sides can marshal apparently adequate hetus and vyāptis for opposing theses, the original hetu loses its probative force. The presence of such a counter reason neutralises the inference, making the middle term defective for establishing a decisive conclusion.

Option A:
Option A would describe a completely irrelevant reason, not specifically one that is countered by an opposing inference; this is closer to an anaikāntika or unrelated hetu.

Option B:
Option B correctly expresses the idea that a satpratipakṣa arises when an equally strong middle term can be advanced on the opposite side, cancelling the evidential value of the original hetu.

Option C:
Option C suggests the hetu occurs only in vipakṣa, which indicates a different failure of trairūpya, not the presence of a rival counter hetu.

Option D:
Option D mentions perception, but a reason being based on perception is not by itself a defect; the problem in satpratipakṣa is symmetrical opposition, not the pramāṇa used.

Savyabhicara hetvabhasa arises when the supposed reason is seen both where the sadhya is present and where it is absent. This irregularity breaks the required vyapti, since the presence of the hetu no longer reliably signals the presence of the sadhya. As a result, the inference becomes defective. Thus the fallacy described in the stem is savyabhicara.

Option A:
Option A, viruddha, is a reason that proves the opposite of what is intended, not one that merely varies across cases.

Option B:
Option B, asiddha, concerns a reason that is not established in the paksha or may not exist there at all.

Option C:
Option C, badhita, is a reason whose alleged vyapti is contradicted by a stronger pramana, such as direct perception.

Option D:
Option D is correct because savyabhicara literally refers to a reason that “deviates” or “wanders” by occurring with and without the probandum, making it unfit as a trustworthy hetu.