UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

In logic, to say that p implies q is to assert that whenever p is true, q must also be true. This relation is captured formally by the conditional "if p, then q". The guarantee of truth transfer from p to q is the essence of implication. Thus the relation described in the stem is that p implies q.

Option A:
Option A, contradicts, would mean that p and q cannot both be true at the same time, which is the opposite of what is stated. Contradiction signals incompatibility, not guaranteed co-truth. Therefore contradicts is not appropriate.

Option B:
Option B, equals, suggests identity rather than a directional truth-preserving relation. Logical equivalence does require mutual implication, but simple equality does not capture the idea of one truth ensuring another. Hence equals is not the right term here.

Option C:
Option C is correct because implies is the standard expression for a relation where the truth of one statement ensures the truth of another. It is central to conditional logic and validity.

Option D:
Option D, excludes, implies mutual incompatibility or inability to coexist, which again contradicts the idea that the truth of one statement forces the truth of another. Consequently excludes is not suitable.

A valid argument is one whose logical form guarantees that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This condition rules out any counterexample with true premises and a false conclusion. Validity concerns the structure of the argument rather than the actual truth of its premises. Therefore the type of argument described in the stem is a valid argument.

Option A:
Option A is correct because validity is defined precisely by the impossibility of true premises leading to a false conclusion. Even if the premises are in fact false, a valid form ensures that no logically consistent counterexample violates this constraint. This matches the requirement given in the question.

Option B:
Option B, sound, is a stronger notion that requires an argument to be both valid and to have all true premises. The stem does not specify that the premises are actually true, only that if they were, the conclusion could not be false, so soundness goes beyond what is stated.

Option C:
Option C, weak, usually describes an inductive argument whose premises provide only limited support for the conclusion. It does not apply to deductive arguments with guaranteed truth preservation.

Option D:
Option D, cogent, refers to an inductive argument that is strong and has true premises, leading to a probably true conclusion. This concept belongs to inductive reasoning, not to the kind of deductive necessity mentioned in the stem.

From the statement “All researchers are readers,” we know that every researcher belongs to the larger class of readers. Assuming the class of researchers is non-empty (as in classical categorical logic), this implies that at least one reader is also a researcher, so it is safe to say some readers are researchers. The information about some readers being teachers does not change this basic inclusion.

Option A:
Option A stays within the clear consequence of putting all researchers inside the set of readers: if there are any researchers, then some readers are researchers.

Option B:
Option B would require that some of the readers who are teachers are also researchers, which is not given by the premises and may or may not be true.

Option C:
Option C overstates the relationship by claiming that all researchers are teachers, which is nowhere implied.

Option D:
Option D introduces a particular negative about researchers and teachers without support in the premises, so it goes beyond the logical information available.

Deductive reasoning is characterised by the claim that if the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false. Its goal is truth preservation from premises to conclusion through a valid logical form. In such reasoning, counterexamples that make premises true and conclusion false are not allowed. Thus the type of reasoning described in the stem is deductive reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, inductive, deals with arguments where premises provide probable support for the conclusion rather than guaranteeing it. Inductive conclusions can still turn out false even if the premises are true. Therefore inductive reasoning does not match the strict necessity mentioned in the question.

Option B:
Option B is correct because deductive reasoning is defined by this requirement of necessary support: true premises should force the truth of the conclusion. Classic examples include syllogisms and formal proofs where validity ensures no loss of truth. This aligns directly with the wording of the stem.

Option C:
Option C, analogical, depends on similarities between cases to infer that what is true of one case is probably true of another. Its conclusions are at best probable and do not claim necessity. Hence analogical reasoning is not the correct answer.

Option D:
Option D, causal, focuses on cause–effect relations and may use either inductive or deductive patterns, but it is not defined solely by the necessary link between premises and conclusion. As a category it does not capture the essential feature of necessity highlighted in the stem.

From the statements, we know that all honest people are trusted, and some teachers fall within the honest group. Therefore, those teachers who are honest must also be trusted, showing that some teachers are trusted. At the same time, these individuals are both trusted and teachers, which means that some trusted people are teachers. The information about some teachers not being patient does not affect these two overlaps. Thus, both A and C follow.

Option A:
Option A correctly recognises that at least one teacher lies in the intersection of honest and trusted individuals, guaranteeing that some teachers are trusted.

Option B:
Option B overgeneralises by claiming that all teachers are trusted, which is not supported because only “some” teachers are known to be honest.

Option C:
Option C correctly focuses on the trusted set and notes that some of its members are teachers, based on the same overlapping individuals.

Option D:
Option D acknowledges that both A and C are valid perspectives on the same logical overlap, while B is not justified.

A valid argument is one in which it is impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. This captures the idea that the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Validity concerns the logical form of the argument, not the actual truth of its statements. Therefore the argument described in the stem is correctly called valid.

Option A:
Option A names valid argument, which is defined by necessary truth preservation from premises to conclusion. It exactly fits the description that the conclusion must follow from the premises. Hence this option is the correct label.

Option B:
Option B, sound, additionally requires that a valid argument have all true premises. Soundness is a stronger property than validity. Since the stem mentions only necessary following, not truth of premises, sound is not the best match.

Option C:
Option C, weak, usually describes an inductive argument in which the premises provide little support for the conclusion. Weak arguments do not ensure or strongly suggest the truth of the conclusion. Thus weak is opposite to the idea expressed in the question.

Option D:
Option D, persuasive, indicates that an argument is psychologically convincing, which may occur even if it is logically bad. Persuasion depends on audience factors rather than strict logical consequence. Therefore persuasive is not the technical term required here.

From “Some doctors are writers” and “All writers are researchers,” we know that there is at least one person who is both a doctor and a writer, and all writers fall within the class of researchers. Therefore, that doctor must also be a researcher. This supports the conclusion that some doctors are researchers. The same overlapping individual also lies in the intersection of doctors and researchers, so it is equally true that some researchers are doctors. Thus, both statements A and C follow.

Option A:
Option A correctly notes that at least one doctor must be a researcher, deriving this from the overlapping subset of doctor-writers being within researchers.

Option B:
Option B overgeneralises by claiming that every doctor is a researcher, which is not warranted by the premises.

Option C:
Option C correctly focuses on the researcher side and notes that some researchers are doctors, because the overlapping individuals are in the researcher class.

Option D:
Option D acknowledges that both perspectives on the same intersection are logically supported, whereas B is not.

The first premise places engineers inside the set of problem solvers, and the second places problem solvers inside the set of creative people. By transitivity of class inclusion, engineers are contained within the set of creative people. This yields the conclusion that all engineers are creative. The direction of inclusion is important: the statements do not claim that all creative people are engineers.

Option A:
Option A correctly follows the chain Engineers ⊆ Problem solvers ⊆ Creative, so Engineers ⊆ Creative. It respects the one-way inclusion implied by the premises.

Option B:
Option B reverses the relationship and claims that every creative person is an engineer, which is much stronger than what is given.

Option C:
Option C might be true in reality, but it is not logically forced by the premises, which say nothing about creative people who are not problem solvers.

Option D:
Option D contradicts the premises, because if all engineers are creative, it cannot be the case that no creative person is an engineer.

The first premise places all athletes inside the set of disciplined people, guaranteeing an overlap between those categories as long as athletes exist. Therefore, some disciplined people must be athletes. The second premise concerns a subset of disciplined people who lack punctuality but does not directly specify whether that subset includes athletes. Thus, we cannot infer anything specific about athletes’ punctuality, but we can affirm that some disciplined persons are athletes.

Option A:
Option A would require that some of the non-punctual disciplined people are athletes, which the premises do not guarantee.

Option B:
Option B goes further and claims that no athlete is punctual, which is unsupported.

Option C:
Option C makes the weaker and logically certain claim that at least one disciplined person is an athlete, which follows from “all athletes are disciplined” under the assumption that athletes exist.

Option D:
Option D introduces a statement about punctual people that is not addressed by the premises and so cannot be logically concluded.

A and B are correct definitions. C is false because valid arguments can have false premises. D is false because a true conclusion can come from invalid reasoning. E is false because a sound argument’s conclusion must be true. Thus only A and B are correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits B (soundness definition).

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes exactly the two true statements.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes C (false).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes C and D (both false) and omits A.