UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Upanaya is the step where the previously stated universal relation between hetu and sādhya, illustrated in the example, is explicitly applied to the subject under consideration. After establishing that “wherever there is smoke, there is fire,” upanaya asserts that “there is smoke on this hill,” thereby linking the universal vyāpti to the particular pakṣa. This bridging move paves the way for the concluding nigamana.

Option A:
Option A corresponds to nigamana, the concluding restatement of the thesis in light of the reason, not to the application step.

Option B:
Option B is largely the work of dṛṣṭānta, where a familiar example is used to state and illustrate the universal concomitance, not its application to the case at hand.

Option C:
Option C properly locates upanaya as the moment where the general rule is connected to the specific subject, making the inference fully anchored in the given situation.

Option D:
Option D introduces the idea of counterexamples, which would undercut the inference rather than support it; this is not the purpose of upanaya.

Premise indicators are words that signal reasons or evidence being offered in support of a conclusion. “Because” usually introduces the supporting statements that explain why the main claim should be accepted. Recognising such indicators helps in breaking an argument into premises and conclusion. In contrast, words like “therefore” typically introduce conclusions.

Option A:
Option A, “therefore,” is widely used to introduce the conclusion rather than the reasons.

Option B:
Option B, “hence,” also serves as a conclusion indicator much like “therefore.”

Option C:
Option C, “because,” normally precedes justification or evidence and thus functions as a premise indicator.

Option D:
Option D, “thus,” again signals a result or conclusion, not the supporting premises.

An argument presents a claim along with supporting reasons. In the second statement, the claim “exam stress is harmful” is followed by the word “because” and two reasons: it reduces concentration and sleep quality. This combination of a conclusion with explicit supporting premises forms an argument. The other statements either express a bare opinion or an exclamation without justification.

Option A:
Option A is only a bare assertion of harm with no reasons; it may be true, but it is not structured as an argument.

Option B:
Option B clearly provides reasons after “because,” which are offered as support for the main claim, satisfying the definition of an argument.

Option C:
Option C is an emotive expression about how stress feels, lacking any explicit rationale to persuade.

Option D:
Option D is an incomplete remark about stress reappearing, again not giving reasons or establishing a conclusion from premises.

In a conditional of the form “if p, then q”, the part that follows “if” is called the antecedent. It represents the condition under which the consequent is asserted to hold. Understanding which part is the antecedent is crucial for analysing implication, contrapositive and related logical forms. Thus the component p in the stem is correctly termed the antecedent.

Option A:
Option A is correct because antecedent literally means “that which goes before” and in conditional statements it precedes the “then” clause. It is the assumed or hypothetical part whose truth is taken as the basis for asserting the consequent.

Option B:
Option B, consequent, is the part that follows “then” and expresses what is said to follow from the antecedent. It corresponds to q, not to p, so it cannot be the answer here.

Option C:
Option C, premise, is a general term for any statement offered as a reason in an argument, and both antecedent and consequent can appear as premises in broader reasoning. However, premise does not specifically identify the first part of a conditional.

Option D:
Option D, conclusion, is the statement that the argument as a whole is trying to establish. A single conditional may express a premise or a conclusion, but p itself is not called the conclusion by definition.

Statements A, B and C describe the standard logical notions of validity and soundness in deductive reasoning, so they are all true together. In a valid deductive argument, true premises guarantee a true conclusion, and validity is a matter of form rather than factual correctness of premises. A sound argument must be both valid and have all true premises, which is exactly what C states. Statements D and E are false, because deductive conclusions do not always go beyond the information in the premises, and an argument can be valid yet unsound if its premises are false. Therefore the combination containing A, B and C only is correct.

Option A:
Option A includes A and B, which are both true, but it omits C, which correctly defines a sound argument as valid with true premises. Because C is also true and is left out, this option does not capture all the correct statements and is therefore incomplete.

Option B:
Option B selects B and C but leaves out A, so it fails to mention the fundamental guarantee that in a valid deductive argument true premises ensure a true conclusion. Since A is a correct statement about validity and is missing, this combination cannot be considered fully correct.

Option C:
Option C includes A, B and C but adds D, which is false because deductive reasoning need not extend beyond the information in the premises; often the conclusion is logically contained in them. Including D alongside the true statements makes the overall set incorrect.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it lists exactly those statements that are true: A about the truth-preserving nature of validity, B about structure, and C about soundness. It excludes D and E, which misrepresent deductive reasoning by suggesting that every valid argument is automatically sound and that conclusions must always go beyond the premises.