UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A and B describe modus ponens and modus tollens, which are valid forms, while C and D describe affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, which are invalid. E correctly classifies A, B vs C, D in exam terms, and F restates that only A and B among the four are correct patterns. Thus A, B, E and F are true, whereas C and D are false as descriptions of valid forms. This makes A, B, E and F only the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits F, which explicitly summarises that only A and B (among A–D) are valid patterns.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it includes C, thereby treating affirming the consequent as if it yielded a valid inference.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it includes all true statements (A, B, E, F) and excludes the false ones (C, D).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it omits A (modus ponens), which is one of the key valid forms.

Modus tollens is the valid rule that allows us to infer the negation of the antecedent from a conditional and the negation of its consequent. In symbolic form, from P → Q and ¬Q we conclude ¬P. This pattern preserves validity, because if P had been true, Q would have had to be true as well, so the falsity of Q forces the falsity of P.

Option A:
Option A is modus ponens, which affirms the antecedent to derive the consequent, a different valid pattern.

Option B:
Option B commits the fallacy of denying the antecedent, which is not generally valid.

Option C:
Option C correctly captures the modus tollens form, using the falsity of the consequent to infer the falsity of the antecedent.

Option D:
Option D is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, which is invalid in general.

A, B and E are correct; C and D are wrong. Denying the antecedent and affirming the consequent are invalid forms; only modus ponens and modus tollens are valid. UGC NET tests spotting these invalid patterns.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because D is also wrong; selecting only C is incomplete.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because C is also wrong; selecting only D is incomplete.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because B is correct (modus tollens), so including B as wrong is incorrect.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it identifies both invalid patterns (C and D) as wrong.

Statements A and B are valid argument forms (modus ponens and modus tollens). C and D are invalid forms (affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent). Statement E is also correct: validity depends on logical form, not on whether the premises are factually true. Hence the correct set of statements is A, B and E only.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it leaves out B (modus tollens), which is also valid, and it also ignores E, which is a true statement about validity.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes A and B but omits E, even though E correctly states that validity depends on form rather than the truth of premises.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes C, and affirming the consequent is a standard fallacy; q can be true for reasons other than p.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it includes the two valid forms (A and B) and the correct general fact about validity (E), while excluding the two fallacies (C and D).

Statements A, B, C and E correctly describe different forms of hypothetical syllogisms, while D is false. A pure hypothetical syllogism chains conditionals, while mixed forms involve a conditional plus a categorical premise, as with modus ponens and modus tollens. Not every pattern with two conditionals and a categorical conclusion is valid; the form matters. UGC NET reasoning often includes such patterns, making E true. Thus A, B, C, E only is the correct set.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, ignoring the explicit exam focus of the question. A, B, C only therefore does not fully address the stem.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it leaves out C, failing to mention that modus ponens and modus tollens are canonical examples of mixed hypothetical forms. A, B, E only thus under-describes the topic.

Option C:
Option C is correct as it gathers the main patterns and the exam orientation, while rightly excluding D, which overgeneralises about any argument combining two conditionals and one categorical conclusion.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes D, thereby endorsing the claim that any such structure is valid, which is demonstrably untrue. B, C, D, E only therefore mixes in a clear error.

Modus tollens is a valid form of argument that denies the antecedent by denying the consequent of a conditional. It proceeds from “if p, then q” and “not q” to the conclusion “not p”. This preserves truth because if p were true, q could not be false. Therefore the pattern described in the stem is known as modus tollens.

Option A:
Option A, affirming the consequent, argues from “if p then q” and “q” to “p”. This pattern is invalid because q might be true for other reasons. Thus affirming the consequent is a fallacy, not the valid form in the question.

Option B:
Option B correctly names modus tollens as the rule that infers “not p” from “if p then q” and “not q”. It is a central tool in deductive proof and refutation. Hence this option accurately answers the question.

Option C:
Option C, denying the antecedent, moves from “if p then q” and “not p” to “not q”. This is also invalid because q could still be true for other causes. Therefore denying the antecedent cannot be the form intended by the stem.

Option D:
Option D, reductio error, is not a standard label for this precise conditional pattern. While reductio arguments sometimes use similar ideas, the technical name of the form in the question is modus tollens.

Statements A and B correctly identify modus ponens and modus tollens as valid argument forms, and D correctly states that denying the antecedent is invalid even though it superficially resembles a valid pattern. Statement E is also true because exam questions often depend on distinguishing valid inferences from fallacies. Statement C is false since affirming the consequent is a classic fallacy; from “if p then q” and “q” one cannot conclude “p” with certainty. Therefore, the combination A, B, D and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E and therefore does not highlight the practical importance of recognising these forms when evaluating arguments in tests like UGC NET. Without E, the applied dimension of the topic is not fully expressed.

Option B:
Option B is also incomplete as it leaves out A, failing to mention explicitly the widely used valid pattern of modus ponens, which is central to many logical derivations. This omission weakens the conceptual coverage.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes C, which treats affirming the consequent as valid, and thereby endorses a logical fallacy. Even though A, B and D are true, the presence of C invalidates the combination.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it gathers the two standard valid forms, identifies denying the antecedent as invalid and notes the value of recognising these patterns in reasoning tasks, while excluding C, the misclassification of affirming the consequent. It matches the logic syllabus for UGC NET.

Statements A, B, D, E and F correctly describe standard conditional argument forms, whereas C is false. Modus ponens and modus tollens are canonical valid patterns used widely in logical reasoning. Affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent match the invalid forms described and are classified as formal fallacies. Recognising these contrasts is exactly what many UGC NET items on conditionals are testing. Option A therefore includes all and only the correct statements.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it collects the two valid forms, identifies the two formal fallacies and notes their exam relevance while excluding the mistaken claim in C. It captures how conditional reasoning is structured in formal logic. By omitting C, it avoids treating the invalid pattern affirming the consequent as valid. Thus this option aligns perfectly with textbook accounts of conditional argument forms.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes C, which wrongly calls affirming the consequent a valid argument form. Once q is known, we cannot simply infer p on that basis without additional information. Including this invalid form among correct ones means the combination cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it omits A and adds C, treating the invalid pattern as correct while losing the explicit description of modus ponens. This distorts the central distinction between valid and fallacious reasoning with conditionals. As a result, the option fails to represent the set of true statements.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it leaves out F, ignoring the practical point about how exam questions use these forms, and it still includes only a subset of the true statements. Without F, the role of these patterns in UGC NET reasoning is not fully reflected. Hence this option is incomplete.