UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

A sound argument is defined as a valid argument with all true premises. Because of validity, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Because the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true in reality. Thus the description in the stem corresponds exactly to the notion of a sound argument.

Option A:
Option A, strong, usually refers to inductive arguments in which the premises make the conclusion highly probable. Strength does not guarantee truth with necessity and need not involve validity. Therefore strong is not the correct technical term here.

Option B:
Option B correctly names a sound argument as one that is valid with true premises. Such arguments provide the highest level of logical assurance about their conclusions. Hence sound is the most appropriate choice for the situation described.

Option C:
Option C, cogent, also describes a good inductive argument with strong support and true premises. However, cogency belongs to inductive, not strictly valid deductive, reasoning. Thus cogent does not match the definition given in the stem.

Option D:
Option D, invalid, refers to an argument whose conclusion does not follow necessarily from its premises. In an invalid argument, true premises may still lead to a false conclusion. Therefore invalid is the opposite of what is described and cannot be correct.

In logical reasoning, an argument is a connected group of statements in which one statement is presented as the conclusion. The remaining statements function as premises that support this conclusion. This structure of claim plus supporting reasons is exactly what the stem describes. Therefore the appropriate name for such a set of statements is an argument.

Option A:
Option A names argument, which is defined as premises offered in support of a conclusion. It captures both the inferential claim and the supporting reasons. Hence it precisely fits the description given in the question.

Option B:
Option B refers to an explanation, which clarifies why something happens or is the case. Explanations may use reasons, but they usually assume the truth of what is explained rather than argue for it. Thus explanation is not the general label for the structure mentioned in the stem.

Option C:
Option C, description, simply reports or depicts a situation without drawing an inferred claim. Descriptive sentences can all be true yet still fail to support a particular conclusion. Therefore a description does not match the idea of premises leading to a conclusion.

Option D:
Option D, illustration, presents examples to make a general claim clearer. Illustrations presuppose the claim instead of offering premises to justify it. Hence illustration alone does not constitute an argument in the logical sense required here.

In UGC NET assertion–reason items, special codes indicate the truth values of A and R and their explanatory relation. When both statements are true and the reason genuinely explains the assertion, a specific code is prescribed. That code explicitly mentions that A and R are true and that R is the correct explanation of A. Hence the code described in the stem corresponds to Option A.

Option A:
Option A accurately states that A is true, R is true and R correctly explains A. This matches the condition specified in the question. Therefore it is the appropriate code for this pattern of truth and explanation.

Option B:
Option B states that both A and R are true but R is not the correct explanation of A. This is used when the statements are independently true but not explanatorily linked. It thus fails to capture the explanatory relation mentioned in the stem.

Option C:
Option C reports that A is true while R is false. Under this code, the reason cannot possibly explain the assertion. Therefore it contradicts the condition that both A and R are true and related explanatorily.

Option D:
Option D indicates that A is false and R is true, which reverses the state of the assertion. In such a case, R cannot correctly explain a false assertion. Hence this code does not satisfy the description in the question.

Good research follows a planned and organized procedure instead of haphazard steps. It uses logical reasoning to link concepts, methods and conclusions. Empirical evidence, collected through appropriate tools, supports or refutes the researcher’s propositions. These features together ensure that research findings are credible, verifiable and useful.

Option A:
Option A overemphasizes personal preferences, which can introduce bias and subjectivity. While researchers’ interests matter in topic selection, sound research cannot be guided only by personal likes or dislikes. It must conform to methodological standards beyond individual preferences.

Option B:
Option B correctly combines systematic planning, logical reasoning and reliance on empirical data. These elements are repeatedly emphasized in research methodology texts as marks of quality inquiry. By grounding conclusions in observable evidence and coherent argument, this characteristic distinguishes good research from casual opinion.

Option C:
Option C highlights unverified assumptions and guesses, which may serve as starting ideas but cannot remain unexamined. Research must test assumptions rather than rely on them blindly. If guesses are not subjected to evidence, the work remains speculative rather than scientific.

Option D:
Option D suggests avoiding literature, which would isolate the study from existing knowledge. A good study always situates itself in prior work to avoid duplication, build on established findings and identify gaps. Ignoring literature reduces both relevance and rigor.

The differences between successive terms are 11, 15, 19 and 23. These differences form an arithmetic progression with a common difference of 4. Therefore the next difference should be 27. Adding 27 to 75 gives 102 as the next term in the series. This choice keeps both the series and the pattern of gaps internally consistent.

Option A:
Option A would create a difference of 23 from 75, so the differences would be 11, 15, 19, 23, 23. The last two gaps are equal, which breaks the rule that each difference increases by 4. Hence 98 cannot be justified by the underlying pattern.

Option B:
Option B uses a difference of 27, giving the sequence of gaps 11, 15, 19, 23, 27. Each step increases by 4, which matches the observed second-level arithmetic progression. As this option uniquely preserves the pattern, 102 is correctly identified as the next term.

Option C:
Option C would produce a difference of 29 from 75, giving gaps 11, 15, 19, 23, 29. The jump from 23 to 29 is 6 rather than 4, which distorts the arithmetic pattern among the differences. Therefore 104 is not a valid continuation.

Option D:
Option D corresponds to a difference of 21 from 75, so the last increment decreases instead of increasing to 27. This contradicts the steadily rising nature of the gaps. Thus 96 does not follow the logic of the series.

Inference is the core process through which we move from given information to a new claim that is taken to follow from it. In logic, premises are connected to a conclusion precisely by acts of inference. This process can be either deductive, aiming at necessity, or inductive, aiming at probability. Therefore the mental act described in the question is correctly termed inference.

Option A:
Option A is correct because inference specifically names the reasoning step that links premises to a conclusion. Whenever we argue that something must or is likely to be true based on other statements, we are performing an inference. This term is central to the study of logical reasoning and captures exactly what the stem describes.

Option B:
Option B, explanation, is concerned with clarifying why a statement that is already accepted is true, rather than deriving a new conclusion from premises. Explanations often assume the truth of what they explain and do not necessarily involve a structured inferential move. Hence explanation does not accurately name the general process of drawing conclusions from given statements.

Option C:
Option C, description, merely reports or depicts a situation without going beyond the information presented. A description can be detailed and accurate, yet it does not by itself generate a novel claim from other statements. Thus description does not match the idea of deriving a conclusion through reasoning.

Option D:
Option D, observation, refers to noticing or perceiving facts, usually through the senses, and is a source of information rather than a logical operation on statements. Observation may supply premises, but it is not the act of connecting those premises to a conclusion. Therefore observation is not the correct choice.

From the conditions, W must precede X, Y must come after Z, and X must come after Y. Taken together, this means Z must be before Y, Y must be before X, and W must be before X. In the order Z, W, Y, X, all three constraints are satisfied: Z is before Y, Y is before X, and W is also before X. None of the other options respects every condition simultaneously.

Option A:
Option A fails because X appears before Z and Y, while the rules require Y after Z and X after Y.

Option B:
Option B (Z, X, W, Y) violates both Y after Z and X after Y, since X comes immediately after Z and before both W and Y.

Option C:
Option C clearly satisfies Z < Y < X and places W before X, so all constraints hold, making it the only acceptable order among the choices. Option D: Option D puts X before Y, contradicting the requirement that X must be after Y.

This option is correct because the logical negation of a universal statement "All S are P" is an existential statement "Some S are not P." Here, "All students are punctual" negates to "Some students are not punctual." Thus, the correct word to fill the blank is "Some."

Option A:
Saying "No students are not punctual" would mean that every student is punctual, which actually restates the original universal claim in a different form. It does not express the negation. Therefore, this option is incorrect.

Option B:
The word "Most" suggests that a large majority of students are not punctual, which is stronger than merely saying at least one is not punctual. Negation in logic only needs one counterexample, so "most" is not the precise logical opposite of "all."

Option C:
The correct negation of a universal statement is existential, and "some" expresses the existence of at least one counterexample. Saying "Some students are not punctual" states that there is at least one student who fails the property, which contradicts the claim that all are punctual. Thus, this option correctly reflects the logical negation.

Option D:
Saying "Exactly two" students are not punctual again specifies a particular number of exceptions. Logical negation, however, only requires at least one exception and does not fix the number. Hence, this option is not the standard negation.

The differences between the terms are 3, 5, 7, 11 and 13. These differences are prime numbers in increasing order. The next prime after 13 is 17. Adding 17 to the last term 41 gives 58. This continues the prime-based difference pattern consistently.

Option A:
Option A gives 56, which yields a difference of 15 from 41 and is not a prime, so it conflicts with the rule that differences are prime numbers. Hence, 56 is not consistent with the underlying structure.

Option B:
Option B yields 58, whose difference from 41 is 17, the next prime expected in the pattern. The extended differences 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17 form a coherent prime-based second-level sequence. Therefore, 58 is the correct next term.

Option C:
Option C suggests 60, giving a difference of 19, which is a prime but would skip 17 and break the specific order in which primes are being used here. This leads to an inconsistency in how the differences evolve. Thus, 60 is not the right continuation.

Option D:
Option D offers 62, which results in a difference of 21 from 41, not a prime but a composite number. This choice would discard the key property that defines the pattern. Therefore, 62 cannot be accepted as correct.

Statements A, B, C and D provide a balanced description of inductive and deductive reasoning. A is correct because deductive reasoning applies general principles to reach specific conclusions, while B is accurate in describing induction as moving from specific observations to broader generalisations. Statement C recognises that both forms of reasoning can complement each other in research, and D is true because deductive logic is used to derive hypotheses from established theories. Statements E and F are false: pattern recognition is central to induction, and deductive arguments yield true conclusions only when their premises are true.

Option A:
Option A includes only A and B, which are both correct but do not cover the full role of reasoning in research. By leaving out C and D, it ignores the complementary use of both reasoning types and the role of deduction in generating testable hypotheses. Because it omits true statements, this option is incomplete.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it groups A, B, C and D, the four statements that together explain how inductive and deductive reasoning operate in research. It acknowledges their directions, their complementarity and their role in deriving hypotheses. Importantly, it excludes E and F, which misrepresent pattern recognition and the conditions for deductive validity.

Option C:
Option C goes wrong by adding statement E to an otherwise correct set. E inaccurately claims that induction never involves pattern recognition, whereas induction typically relies on noticing patterns in observations. Including a false statement makes this combination invalid.

Option D:
Option D includes F, which states that deductive reasoning guarantees true conclusions even if the premises are false. This is logically incorrect because the truth of a deductive conclusion depends on both valid form and true premises. By admitting F, this option cannot be accepted as correct.

In this question, statements A, C, E and F correctly describe the scientific method, while B and D are wrong. Statement A is true because systematic observation and logical reasoning are central to scientific inquiry. Statement C correctly identifies hypothesising, testing and verification as typical steps, and statement E is right that objectivity and replicability are crucial. Statement F is also true since scientific principles can be adapted within qualitative frameworks, whereas B is false because empirical evidence is fundamental and D is false as intuition alone cannot constitute scientific research.

Option A:
Option A treats B as the only wrong statement and ignores D. While B is indeed false because the scientific method depends on empirical evidence, D is also incorrect since relying solely on intuition contradicts scientific rigour. By missing one of the wrong statements, this option does not fully answer the question.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies both B and D as wrong statements and does not misclassify any of the true statements. It recognises that rejecting empirical evidence and relying only on intuition are both incompatible with the scientific method. Because it captures the full set of wrong statements and excludes the correct ones, this option is the right answer.

Option C:
Option C marks only D as wrong and overlooks B. Although D is clearly false, B is equally incorrect because scientific research requires empirical data. Since this combination fails to include all the wrong statements, it cannot be accepted.

Option D:
Option D wrongly includes statement C among the wrong statements along with B and D. Statement C is actually a correct description of typical steps in the scientific method. By misclassifying a correct statement as wrong, this option becomes logically inconsistent.

In each group the letters are equally spaced by six positions in the alphabet. AGM uses positions 1, 7 and 13, BHN uses 2, 8 and 14, CIO uses 3, 9 and 15 and DJP uses 4, 10 and 16. The starting letter increases by one each time, so the next group should start at E and use letters at positions 5, 11 and 17, which are E, K and Q. Hence EKQ is the correct continuation.

Option A:
Option A, EKR, has the correct first two letters but ends with R, which is position 18 instead of 17. That changes the spacing of the last jump to seven rather than six. Because the sequence relies on a constant gap of six between letters in each group, EKR does not follow the pattern.

Option B:
Option B is correct because E, K and Q lie exactly six positions apart from each other, just like the letters in all previous groups. The starting letter E also continues the simple progression from A to D. This combination of consistent internal spacing and systematic movement of the first letter makes EKQ the only valid next term.

Option C:
Option C, ELP, does not keep a constant difference between successive letters, and its positions do not match the earlier arithmetic structure. The gaps inside ELP differ from those inside AGM, BHN, CIO and DJP. Therefore it cannot be considered a proper continuation of the series.

Option D:
Option D, FKR, breaks the pattern by starting at F instead of E and also fails to maintain the fixed six letter spacing. Both the starting position and the internal distances contradict the established rule, so FKR is not correct.

Statements A, C, D and F are correct, whereas B and E are incorrect. A standard categorical syllogism has three propositions involving exactly three distinct terms, and validity requires that the middle term be distributed at least once. Two negative premises cannot yield a valid conclusion because they fail to establish a positive link between the major and minor terms. Venn diagrams are widely used in reasoning questions to test such syllogisms visually. By contrast, B wrongly claims four terms, and E misstates the relationship between universal premises and the quantity of the conclusion. Therefore A, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits F, leaving out the important fact that Venn diagrams are a recognised tool for checking validity. While A, C and D are true, the absence of F means this option does not contain all correct statements. Hence A, C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it includes E as though it were correct. E claims that universal premises always force a particular conclusion, but some valid moods, like Barbara, produce universal conclusions. Including this false rule makes the combination logically unsound.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it groups A, C, D and F, capturing the structural features and testing method of categorical syllogisms. It excludes B, which inflates the number of terms, and E, which oversimplifies the quality-quantity relations. Thus this option matches the genuine rules of classical syllogistic logic.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it accepts E as well as C, D and F while omitting A. Leaving out A ignores the three-proposition nature of syllogisms, and including E introduces a faulty generalisation about conclusions. Therefore C, D, E and F only cannot be the right answer.

The consecutive differences in the series are 7, 11, 15 and 19. These differences form an arithmetic progression with common difference 4. Therefore the next difference should be 23. Adding 23 to the last term 56 gives 79, which maintains the same second-level arithmetic structure and yields a smooth continuation.

Option A:
Option A gives 79, creating differences 7, 11, 15, 19, 23. Each difference increases by 4, so the pattern among the gaps remains consistent and clear. This makes 79 the only option that fully respects the established structure of the sequence.

Option B:
Option B gives 77, corresponding to a difference of 21 from 56. The resulting difference sequence 7, 11, 15, 19, 21 would end with a step of 2 instead of 4, breaking the uniform growth in the differences. Thus 77 does not fit the rule.

Option C:
Option C gives 81, which implies a difference of 25 from 56. That produces gaps 7, 11, 15, 19, 25, where the last increment is 6 and not 4. Consequently, 81 disrupts the simple arithmetic progression among the differences.

Option D:
Option D gives 83, yielding a difference of 27 from 56. The final increment between 19 and 27 becomes 8, which sharply departs from the steady step of 4. Therefore 83 is not a valid continuation of the series.

A is correct because the unit covers both numerical aptitude and logical reasoning aspects. C is true as data interpretation in NET uses various graphical and tabular forms. E is also correct since exposure to diverse question types improves speed and accuracy. B is wrong because series, analogies, classification and coding–decoding are explicitly part of mathematical reasoning and aptitude. D is wrong because purely logical items fall within the same unit and are not excluded. Hence B and D only are the wrong statements.

Option A:
Option A selects only B as wrong and ignores D, even though D incorrectly narrows the scope of mathematical aptitude to numeric questions. It therefore does not capture all incorrect statements.

Option B:
Option B chooses only D as wrong and overlooks B, which wrongly claims that several reasoning types are unrelated to Unit 5. So it also fails to identify the full set of wrong statements.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it identifies both B and D as misrepresenting the syllabus while leaving A, C and E as accurate descriptions of the breadth and preparation strategy for the unit.

Option D:
Option D incorrectly includes C among the wrong statements, even though data interpretation indeed uses tables and graphs, and thus misclassifies a true statement along with B and D.