UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Trairupya refers to the threefold set of criteria that any acceptable hetu must meet: it must occur in the paksha, be present wherever the sadhya is present and be absent where the sadhya is absent. Together, these conditions ensure that the proposed reason is reliably connected with the probandum. Nyaya uses trairupya as a rigorous test for evaluating potential middle terms.

Option A:
Option A, upadhi, is a limiting condition that reveals hidden restrictions on a supposed vyapti, but it is not itself the positive set of requirements for a valid hetu.

Option B:
Option B, vyapti, denotes the universal concomitance between hetu and sadhya but does not specify the distinct checks needed to see whether a particular hetu instance exemplifies that relation.

Option C:
Option C is correct because trairupya literally means "having three forms" and is explicitly formulated in Nyaya as the standard yardstick for judging the soundness of reasons in inference.

Option D:
Option D, hetvabhasa, refers to fallacious reasons that fail to meet one or more of these marks and is therefore a class of defects, not the criteria themselves.

Upanaya explicitly connects the general vyapti illustrated in the drstanta with the paksha by stating that the reason found in the example is also present in the subject. It bridges universal and particular, preparing for the conclusion. This application confirms that the paksha falls under the general rule. Therefore the step described in the stem is called upanaya.

Option A:
Option A, nigamana, is the concluding step that restates the thesis as established and comes after the application has been made. It does not itself perform the application.

Option B:
Option B, drstanta, provides the example and statement of vyapti but does not yet relate it to the specific paksha. It sets the stage for upanaya.

Option C:
Option C is correct because upanaya literally means “leading towards” and refers to bringing the paksha under the scope of the vyapti. It is the crucial step that shows the rule is relevant to the particular case.

Option D:
Option D, pratijna, is the initial thesis and not the linking step between general rule and subject.

Vyapti is the universal relation of pervasion that ensures that the presence of the hetu implies the presence of the sadhya. It is learned through observation of positive and negative cases or through reliable testimony. Without vyapti, the inferential step from sign to probandum would lack justification. Thus the connection described in the stem is called vyapti.

Option A:
Option A, hetu, is the individual sign such as smoke present in the paksha and does not itself denote the general rule that links all smoke with fire.

Option B:
Option B is correct because vyapti captures precisely the idea that the hetu is never found without the sadhya and forms the logical backbone of valid anumana. It is the bridge that allows us to move from observed instances to reliable conclusions.

Option C:
Option C, drstanta, is a concrete example used to illustrate vyapti, like a kitchen where smoke and fire co-occur, but it is distinct from the universal relation itself.

Option D:
Option D, paksha dharma, refers to a property present in the paksha and indicates a specific occurrence rather than an overarching universal connection.

Trairupya refers to the three criteria that any acceptable hetu must satisfy: it must be present in the paksha, pervade all positive instances where the sadhya is present and be absent from all negative instances where the sadhya is absent. Together these marks ensure that the hetu is firmly connected to the sadhya without exceptions. Nyaya uses trairupya as a rigorous test for evaluating proposed reasons.

Option A:
Option A, vyapti, denotes the universal concomitance itself but does not specify the distinct conditions for checking whether a particular hetu exemplifies it correctly in the context of inference.

Option B:
Option B, upadhi, is a limiting condition that reveals hidden restrictions on a purported universal relation, and although related to vyapti, it is not the list of positive criteria that a sound hetu must meet.

Option C:
Option C, udaharana, is the general rule with example in the Nyaya five-limbed argument, not a set of tests for the middle term.

Option D:
Option D is correct because trairupya literally means "having three forms" and is explicitly formulated in Nyaya as the standard against which the legitimacy of reasons is judged.

Statements A, B and C accurately distinguish inference for oneself from inference for others and describe the role of vyāpti illustration. E is also true, since UGC NET includes questions on these modes. D is false because Nyaya clearly accepts svārthānumāna as genuine internal inference. F is false because the canonical parārthānumāna has five members, not merely three. Therefore A, B, C and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits E, failing to mention that exams explicitly test this distinction. While A, B and C are true, they do not cover the full scope of the question.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it adds D, which misrepresents Nyaya’s position on svārthānumāna as if it were denied. This contradicts the standard account and makes the combination false.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it includes F, which claims that parārthānumāna always has exactly three members, and it omits A, losing the definition of svārthānumāna. This mix of omission and error prevents the option from being correct.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it gathers all the true statements and excludes the two false claims about Nyaya’s denial of internal inference and the three-member limitation. It matches the syllabus level treatment of Indian inference.

Paksha is the locus or subject about which an inferential claim is made. In the standard example, the hill functions as paksha because fire is to be proved of it. All discussion of the presence or absence of hetu and sadhya centres around this subject. Thus the entity described in the stem is correctly termed paksha.

Option A:
Option A is correct because paksha identifies the side of the dispute or the case under consideration in the argument. Without specifying the paksha, one would not know where the probandum is supposed to hold. Nyaya's formalism requires clarity about this locus to test the validity of inference.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, is the reason or middle term that links paksha with sadhya, such as smoke, and is conceptually distinct from the subject in which it occurs.

Option C:
Option C, sadhya, is the probandum or property to be established, like fire, and cannot be equated with the subject that bears it.

Option D:
Option D, vyapti, is the universal relation between hetu and sadhya that supports inference and is not the subject of which the property is predicated.

Trairupya refers to the threefold criteria a reason must meet: presence in the paksha, presence in all sapaksha where the sadhya is present and absence in all vipaksha where the sadhya is absent. These conditions ensure a strong, exceptionless link between hetu and sadhya. Nyaya uses trairupya as a standard test for the adequacy of any proposed hetu. Hence the collective marks mentioned in the stem are called trairupya.

Option A:
Option A, vyapti, denotes the universal concomitance itself but does not enumerate the conditions by which a particular hetu is tested.

Option B:
Option B is correct because trairupya literally means “having three characteristics” and is the technical label for these three necessary conditions.

Option C:
Option C, upadhi, is a limiting condition that qualifies vyapti, often revealing why a purported universal fails; it is not the set of positive marks of a valid reason.

Option D:
Option D, samsaya, signifies doubt and is an epistemic state, not a criterion for assessing hetu.

A, C and E are correct; B and D are false. Nyaya uses tarka as an auxiliary tool to rule out alternatives in establishing vyāpti, typically via unacceptable-consequence reasoning. It is not treated as an independent pramāṇa equal to perception/inference, and vyāpti establishment does involve such supportive reasoning.

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

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes B (false: tarka is not an independent pramāṇa of equal status).

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes D (false: Nyaya does use tarka in the process).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes both B and D (false).

Statements A, B and C correctly describe viruddha and bādhita as fallacious reasons, and E notes their exam relevance. D is false because viruddha hetu is defective, not ideal. Thus A, B, C and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes D (false).

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (core definition of viruddha).

Option D:
Option D is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D.

Nyāya describes a formal five-step pattern for anumāna: stating the thesis (pratijñā), giving the reason (hetu), citing an example that shows vyāpti (dṛṣṭānta), applying the universal to the minor term (upanaya) and finally drawing the conclusion (nigamana). This order moves from claim, to justification, to illustration, to application, and ends with a restated, now justified conclusion. The sequence in option C follows this traditional structure exactly.

Option A:
Option A incorrectly starts with the reason and then states the thesis, reversing the natural Nyāya order.

Option B:
Option B misplaces hetu after dṛṣṭānta, although the reason should precede the illustrative example in the usual pattern.

Option C:
Option C faithfully reproduces the textbook order of the five avayavas, reflecting the logical and pedagogical flow emphasised in Nyāya manuals.

Option D:
Option D starts with the example rather than the thesis, which does not match the standard presentation of the inferential sequence.

A, B, C and E correctly describe vyāpti, its establishment via sapakṣa/vipakṣa considerations, and its role in Nyaya inference; the smoke–fire example is standard. D is false because one coincidence cannot justify a universal invariable relation. Hence A, B, C and E only are correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D, which overclaims what one coincidence can establish.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E (the common illustrative example used in exam contexts).

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes D (false).

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it omits B (the key sapakṣa/vipakṣa basis) and includes D (false).

Hetvabhasa literally means “that which looks like a hetu” but is not genuinely connected to the sadhya by vyapti. Such a reason may resemble a valid hetu in form yet lacks the necessary conditions for successful inference. Recognising hetvabhasas helps one detect fallacies in argumentation. Therefore the deceptive reason described in the stem is called hetvabhasa.

Option A:
Option A, vyapti, is the genuine universal concomitance between hetu and sadhya and is a mark of validity, not fallacy.

Option B:
Option B, drstanta, is the illustrative example used to show the connection between hetu and sadhya; it may support or reveal a fallacy but is not itself the erroneous reason described.

Option C:
Option C is correct because hetvabhasa covers the standard categories of faulty reasons such as savyabhicara, viruddha and asiddha. Each instance looks like a reason but fails on closer analysis.

Option D:
Option D, paksha, is the subject of inference and cannot be equated with the defective reason used within the argument.

Nigamana is the concluding step in which the original pratijna is reiterated as proven in light of the presented hetu, drstanta and upanaya. It summarises the inferential achievement by affirming that the sadhya indeed holds in the paksha. This closure makes the argumentative status of the thesis explicit. Therefore the final member described in the stem is called nigamana.

Option A:
Option A, pratijna, is the initial thesis statement that precedes justification and cannot be the concluding affirmation. It opens rather than closes the argument.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, provides the reason and appears as the second member, offering support but not functioning as the summarising conclusion.

Option C:
Option C, udaharana, gives the general rule with example and is located in the middle of the sequence, not at the end.

Option D:
Option D is correct because nigamana literally means "drawing together" and is reserved for the point at which the argument is brought to a formal close by restating the now-supported claim.

Statements A, B, D and E correctly characterise asiddha hetu as a middle term that is not properly established, either because it does not qualify the pakṣa or is itself impossible, and note its place in UGC NET questions. C is false because a hetu present in the pakṣa but absent in all sapakṣa cases is rather an example of asādhāraṇa or improperly restricted reason, not simply asiddha. Thus the true statements are A, B, D and E only.

Option A:
Option A is correct since it includes all the accurate descriptions and the exam-related remark, while excluding C which mislabels a different defect as asiddha. It reflects the standard Nyaya classification of hetvābhāsa.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E, failing to mention that UGC NET often provides examples of such fallacious reasons in the options. Without E, the exam application of the concept is missing.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as it drops A, losing the basic idea that asiddha hetu is unestablished in the pakṣa, and it also keeps an incomplete/incorrect mix. So it does not include all true statements.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it keeps C (false) and omits B (true), so it cannot be the correct combination.

Hetvabhasa literally means "that which appears like a hetu" and refers to reasons that mimic valid middle terms but do not actually establish the sadhya. Such defects may arise from irregularity, contradiction, absence in the paksha or being defeated by stronger evidence. Identifying hetvabhasas is crucial for spotting fallacies in inference. Thus the deceptive reason described in the stem is called hetvabhasa.

Option A:
Option A, vyapti, is the genuine universal concomitance between hetu and sadhya and is a sign of correctness, not of fallacy. It underwrites valid inference rather than indicating error.

Option B:
Option B is correct because hetvabhasa is the umbrella term for several standard types of fallacious reasoning in Nyaya, such as savyabhicara, viruddha and asiddha. Each example illustrates how an apparent reason can fail logically.

Option C:
Option C, drstanta, is the illustrative example used to support the inference and is not itself the defective reason, though it can reveal defects.

Option D:
Option D, paksha dharma, simply indicates a property present in the paksha and may or may not function as a suitable hetu; it is not inherently fallacious.