UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, E and F are correct, while D is incorrect. Pakṣa is indeed the subject where the probandum is to be shown, and vyāpti states the invariable relation between hetu and sādhya. Sapakṣa are positive instances with both reason and probandum, and a proper hetu must appear in all such cases and in none of the negative instances, vipakṣa. If hetu appears in vipakṣa, its exclusiveness is broken, making the reason fallacious. Statement D is wrong because vipakṣa are cases where the sādhya is absent and, for a proper hetu, the reason should also be absent there.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits F, thereby ignoring the important consequence that hetu’s presence in vipakṣa leads to a fallacy. While A, B, C and E describe key concepts, they do not mention what happens when the exclusiveness condition is violated. Thus A, B, C and E only cannot be the full set of correct statements.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it combines A, B, C, E and F, reflecting the standard Nyaya account of pakṣa, vyāpti, sapakṣa, vipakṣa and the condition of a proper hetu. It excludes D, which wrongly describes vipakṣa as places where hetu is present but sādhya is absent. The option therefore matches the real structure of Indian inference theory.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it accepts D along with the other statements. By treating D as correct, it suggests that hetu is present in vipakṣa, which is the very situation that undermines the validity of the reason. Including D therefore makes this option inconsistent with the conditions for a proper hetu.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it drops B, a central explanation of vyāpti, and keeps A, C, E and F only. Without acknowledging vyāpti explicitly, the picture of inference is incomplete, and the presence of D’s error in other options confirms that this reduced set does not accurately represent all true statements.

Statements A, B, C, D and E accurately describe the five members of the Nyaya syllogism, whereas F is incorrect. Pratijñā is the initial thesis, hetu provides the reason, udāharaṇa states the universal concomitance with an example, and upanaya links that rule to the pakṣa. Nigamana then concludes by restating the thesis in light of these steps. Pakṣa is not absent; it is the locus where the sādhya is to be established, so F misrepresents its role. Therefore A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it collects exactly the five true statements that correspond to the traditional Nyaya account of reasoning. It excludes F, which wrongly claims that pakṣa has no logical role, even though it is central as the subject of inference. This combination thus reflects both the structure and intent of the pañcāvayava form.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it omits E, failing to mention nigamana, the concluding member that restates the thesis. Without E, the picture of the five-membered structure is incomplete. Consequently A, B, C and D only cannot be chosen as correct.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes F and omits A. Including F accepts the false claim that pakṣa is absent, and leaving out A ignores the naming of pratijñā as the first member. Both problems make B, C, D, E and F only an unacceptable option.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it accepts F along with A, C and D and leaves out B and E. Omitting hetu and nigamana removes crucial steps, while adopting F distorts the status of pakṣa. Therefore A, C, D and F only does not represent the set of correct statements.