UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Inductive reasoning is used when the premises are intended to make the conclusion likely rather than certain. In this kind of argument, even if all the premises are true, the conclusion can still possibly be false. Inductive arguments are evaluated in terms of strength and weakness, not validity. Thus the probabilistic support described in the stem is characteristic of inductive reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, necessary, is not a type of reasoning but a property of conditions or truths that must hold. It does not name a method of drawing conclusions from premises. Therefore it cannot fill the blank appropriately.

Option B:
Option B, deductive, aims at arguments where the truth of the premises guarantees the truth of the conclusion. Deductive reasoning seeks certainty, not mere probability, and so does not match the description in the question.

Option C:
Option C is correct because inductive reasoning allows us to infer generalisations, predictions or explanations that are more or less probable based on observed evidence. Everyday scientific and statistical inferences are typically inductive in this sense.

Option D:
Option D, demonstrative, is often used as a synonym for strictly proved or deductive reasoning, which again clashes with the idea of probabilistic support. It is therefore not the best term here.

A strong inductive argument is one in which the truth of the premises would make the falsity of the conclusion very unlikely. Unlike valid deductive arguments, inductive arguments do not aim at absolute necessity but at high probability. When the premises give robust support to the conclusion, the argument is said to be strong. Thus the criterion described in the stem corresponds to inductive strength.

Option A:
Option A, invalid, is a label used for deductive arguments in which it is possible for the premises to be true and the conclusion false. It is not a measure of inductive support and therefore does not match the probabilistic description in the question.

Option B:
Option B, weak, refers to an inductive argument whose premises provide little support for the conclusion. In a weak argument, the conclusion could easily be false even if the premises are true. This is the opposite of the condition noted in the stem.

Option C:
Option C is correct because strong inductive arguments specifically aim to make the conclusion unlikely to be false given the premises. This standard prepares the ground for the notion of cogency when the premises are also true.

Option D:
Option D, circular, indicates a flawed structure where the conclusion is essentially assumed in the premises. Such reasoning is not characterised by probability relations between distinct premises and conclusion, so it does not fit the stem.