UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, D and F correctly describe similarities and differences between Nyaya and Western approaches, while E is false. Western syllogisms use a three-part structure, whereas Nyaya sets out five members to make explicit the thesis, reason, example, application and conclusion. This expanded form highlights vyāpti and its relation to the pakṣa, and exam items may unpack common examples into these steps. Both traditions, however, aim to justify conclusions with reasons. E is wrong because Western logic can represent long chains of reasoning by linking several arguments. Thus A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct since it draws a balanced comparison, showing structural differences without exaggerating them into absolute opposition. It also ties the theory to typical UGC NET questions. By excluding E, it avoids the mistaken idea that Western logic is limited to only three-step arguments.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits F, missing the important concluding point that both traditions share the goal of valid reasoning. Without F, the comparison sounds more divisive than it actually is. Therefore A, B, C and D only is not fully adequate.

Option C:
Option C is wrong as it includes E, treating Western logic as incapable of handling longer chains, which is clearly false in both classical and modern systems. Even simple derivations can involve many steps. Including E makes the combination unreliable.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it leaves out C and includes E, thereby ignoring the explicit role of vyāpti while accepting a false limitation on Western arguments. This mixture does not accurately reflect comparative logic.

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.