UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Anvayavyatireki inference uses a combination of positive instances, where hetu and sadhya occur together, and negative instances, where both are absent, to establish vyapti. This dual confirmation makes the universal relation particularly robust. Nyaya often considers this the most complete way of grounding an inference. Hence the pattern described in the stem is termed anvayavyatireki.

Option A:
Option A is correct because anvaya refers to agreement in presence and vyatireka to agreement in absence, jointly capturing the two-sided evidential support for the relation. This fits the description of both joint presence and joint absence.

Option B:
Option B, kevalavyatireki, restricts itself to negative instances and does not rely on positive sapaksha cases.

Option C:
Option C, kevalanvayi, relies only on positive sapaksha instances with no negative comparison class.

Option D:
Option D, sesavat, is part of the temporal classification of inference (effect to cause) and does not specify how vyapti is established.

Samanyatodrsta anumana draws on widely observed uniformities that need not be strictly causal, for example inferring that something is moving when its position is constantly changing. The basis is a general correlation between two features rather than a detailed causal analysis. Nyaya reserves this term for such inferences grounded in generic co-existence.

Option A:
Option A, purvavat, is tied specifically to cause-to-effect reasoning and thus does not cover all non-causal uniformities of the kind mentioned.

Option B:
Option B is correct because samanyatodrsta literally means "known from generality" and designates inferences that rely on broad patterns of association rather than on clearly articulated causal sequences.

Option C:
Option C, sesavat, is effect-to-cause inference and presupposes a causal explanation, which is not emphasised in the motion example.

Option D:
Option D, kevalavyatireki, describes a vyapti pattern based solely on negative instances and has nothing to do with the causal or non-causal character of the relation.

In an asiddha hetu, the middle term is not established as qualifying the pakṣa, so one of the trairūpya conditions fails at the outset. Saying “the sky is fragrant because it is a lotus” presupposes that the sky has the property of being a lotus, which is obviously false. Since the pakṣa does not possess the alleged hetu, the inference cannot legitimately proceed. The reason remains unproved in the subject and so is labelled asiddha.

Option A:
Option A clearly shows a middle term, “being a lotus,” that is not actually present in the subject, the sky, thus exemplifying the unproved middle defect.

Option B:
Option B presents the classic valid Nyāya inference where smoke is genuinely present on the hill, so the hetu is siddha, not asiddha.

Option C:
Option C gives a plausible causal generalisation; even if debatable empirically, the middle term “having water” is clearly present in the lake and so is not unproved in the pakṣa.

Option D:
Option D links breakability to being made of clay, a widely accepted connection where the middle term is present in the pot, so it does not illustrate asiddha.