UGCNET Questions

A correct deductive pattern guarantees the truth of the conclusion whenever the premises are true. The form “If it rains, the ground gets wet; it is raining; therefore the ground will get wet” is a classic example of modus ponens. Here the condition and its antecedent are both asserted, making the consequent logically necessary. There is no gap between the premises and the conclusion in such a structure.

Option A:
Option A has the structure “If P then Q; P; therefore Q,” which is modus ponens, a standard valid deductive form where the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true.

Option B:
Option B, “The ground is wet, so it must have rained,” affirms the consequent and concludes the antecedent. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, because wet ground can have other causes.

Option C:
Option C makes a prediction based on temporal repetition, which is inductive rather than deductive.

Option D:
Option D treats a cloudy sky as a sufficient condition for rain, which is not logically guaranteed and again represents an inductive guess, not a valid deduction.

A deductive argument is one in which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In the metals example, the general premise covers all metals, and the second premise identifies copper as a member of that class. The conclusion about copper’s conductivity follows necessarily from these two claims. There is no room for the conclusion to be false if both premises hold, which is the hallmark of deductive reasoning.

Option A:
Option A uses a classic syllogistic structure: a universal generalisation plus a specific instance leading to a necessity claim. This structure guarantees the conclusion whenever the premises are accepted as true.

Option B:
Option B is inductive because it generalises from sample data to a broader population with only probable support.

Option C:
Option C is a weak inductive prediction based on a single previous observation and does not claim necessity.

Option D:
Option D overgeneralises from one case and therefore is inductive and also fallacious, not deductive.