UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Paksha is the locus or subject about which the conclusion of an inference is drawn. In the classic example, the hill serves as paksha where the property of being fiery is to be demonstrated. All discussion about presence or absence of hetu and sadhya centres on this subject. Hence the entity described in the stem is called paksha.

Option A:
Option A is correct because paksha literally means “the side” under consideration in argument. Nyaya texts consistently identify paksha as the place where the probandum is to be established.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, is the reason or sign used to justify the conclusion, such as the presence of smoke. It functions as a middle term, not as the subject.

Option C:
Option C, sadhya, is the property or probandum to be established in the paksha, like fire, and is conceptually different from the subject possessing it.

Option D:
Option D, vyapti, denotes the universal relation between hetu and sadhya that underlies the inference. It is a logical relation, not a subject-locus.

Statements A, B, C, E and F are correct, whereas D is false. Svarthānumāna is an internal inference process for oneself, while parārthānumāna is the externally presented inference to persuade others. The five-member Nyaya syllogism exemplifies parārthānumāna, and its clear stages help an audience track the reasoning, which is why UGC NET can test identification of these steps. D is wrong because svarthānumāna does not require verbal expression of all five members; the inferential process may remain implicit in the thinker’s mind. Thus A, B, C, E and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all the true statements about the distinction between private and public inference while excluding D, which overstates the formality required in svarthānumāna. It reflects both the theoretical framework and its examination relevance. Therefore it is the best answer.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete as it omits F, ignoring the exam-oriented point that candidates may be asked to map sentences to steps of the Nyaya syllogism. Although A, B, C and E are true, leaving out F makes the combination less aligned with UGC NET practice. Hence it cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it omits A and includes only B, C, E and F. Without A, the nature of svarthānumāna as personal inference is not mentioned, which weakens the conceptual contrast. Thus B, C, E and F only does not represent all correct statements.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it accepts D, which incorrectly demands verbalisation of all five members in svarthānumāna, and omits B. This reverses the distinction between inner and outer inference and distorts the Nyaya account. Therefore A, C, D, E and F only cannot be chosen.

Upanaya explicitly connects the general vyapti exemplified in the drstanta with the paksha by affirming that the hetu occurs in the subject in the same way as in the example. This shows that the subject falls under the scope of the universal rule. It prepares the ground for the final conclusion that the sadhya is present in the paksha. Hence the step described in the stem is called upanaya.

Option A:
Option A, udaharana, states the general rule along with the illustrative example but does not yet link that rule to the specific paksha. It functions earlier in the sequence to establish vyapti.

Option B:
Option B, nigamana, is the final conclusion that restates the thesis as established after upanaya has been made. It is the outcome rather than the application step.

Option C:
Option C is correct because upanaya literally means "leading towards" and signifies bringing the paksha under the general relation, which is exactly what the stem describes.

Option D:
Option D, pratijna, introduces the thesis at the beginning of the argument and does not perform the explicit application of the rule to the subject.

Traditional Nyāya presents inference with five avayavas: thesis, reason, example, application and conclusion. This makes the inferential structure, illustration and application to the subject explicit, especially in parārthānumāna. By contrast, the standard Western syllogism is typically compressed into two premises and a conclusion, omitting separate steps for example and application. This difference in explicitness and number of steps is often highlighted in comparative studies of logic.

Option A:
Option A is false because Nyāya does have a middle term (hetu), analogous to the Western middle term; both systems rely on a mediating concept.

Option B:
Option B accurately notes that Nyāya traditionally employs a five membered verbal form, while Western syllogism uses a three proposition structure.

Option C:
Option C misdescribes both traditions historically; each began with verbal formulations long before later symbolic notation.

Option D:
Option D incorrectly claims that Nyāya avoids universals; in fact, universal statements are crucial for vyāpti and for many of its premises.

Statements A, B and C accurately describe key similarities and differences between Nyaya’s five-member syllogism and Aristotelian syllogisms, and E is true about syllabus emphasis. D is false because Aristotelian syllogisms often involve universal propositions. Thus A, B, C and E only is correct.

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

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

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (five-member vs three-proposition contrast).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B (shared middle-term idea), so it is incomplete.

Drstanta is the example that makes the universal relation between hetu and sadhya vivid and acceptable to the listener. It usually cites a familiar case where both occur together, such as fire and smoke in a kitchen. This helps to ground the claim of vyapti empirically. Therefore the example described in the stem is called drstanta.

Option A:
Option A is correct because drstanta literally means “seen instance” and functions as the third component of the Nyaya inference, combining a general statement with an example. It is central in showing that the hetu–sadhya connection is not merely speculative.

Option B:
Option B, paksha, is the specific subject of inference like the hill, not the exemplar case used to demonstrate vyapti.

Option C:
Option C, upanaya, is the application step that links the general rule shown by the drstanta to the paksha. It comes after the example is given.

Option D:
Option D, nigamana, is the concluding restatement of the thesis, not the illustrative middle step.

In Nyāya’s parārthānumāna, udāharaṇa (or dṛṣṭānta) is the step where a general example is cited, such as “like a kitchen where there is smoke and fire.” Its role is to illustrate the universal relation (vyāpti) between hetu and sādhya in a familiar case so that the listener accepts that connection.

Option A:
Option A refers to pratijñā, the thesis, which simply states what is to be proved.

Option B:
Option B refers to the hetu step, where the reason (e.g., “because it has smoke”) is first introduced.

Option C:
Option C correctly identifies udāharaṇa as the example statement that makes the vyāpti vivid by mentioning a well-known case.

Option D:
Option D describes nigamana, the concluding restatement of the thesis after the reason, example and application have been given.

All five statements correctly describe the five members of the Nyaya syllogism (pratijñā, hetu, udāharaṇa, upanaya, nigamana). Therefore all are correct and the right option must include A–E.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E (nigamana).

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits D (upanaya).

Option C:
Option C is incomplete because it omits C (udāharaṇa).

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

Statements A, B, C, D and E correctly describe the five members of the Nyaya parārthānumāna, whereas F is false. Pratijñā presents the thesis about the pakṣa, hetu gives the reason, udāharaṇa supplies a universal example, upanaya applies that universal relation to the pakṣa and nigamana concludes the inference. The ordered presentation is meant to clarify both the general vyāpti and its specific application, so it is neither arbitrary nor insignificant. Therefore F must be rejected.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes the full and accurate description of each step in the five-member syllogism and excludes F, which denies the significance of their order. It aligns with standard Nyaya accounts used in UGC NET Indian logic questions. Hence A, B, C, D and E only is the right choice.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete as it omits E, thereby failing to mention nigamana, the final restatement of the conclusion. Without E, the overall structure of the syllogism is left unfinished. Therefore A, B, C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it omits A and includes only B, C, D and E. Without A, the role of pratijñā as the thesis about the pakṣa is absent, leaving the syllogism without its starting claim. This omission makes B, C, D and E only an inadequate combination.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B and presents only A, C, D and E. Without B, the explicit statement of hetu as the reason is missing, which is central to the syllogistic structure. Thus A, C, D and E only cannot represent all the correct statements.