UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, D and E correctly describe the threefold division of inference, whereas F is false. Pūrvavat and śeṣavat explicitly connect cause and effect in opposite directions, and sāmānyato-dṛṣṭa depends on regular associations not tied to a clear causal order. All three are grounded in vyāpti, the invariable relation between hetu and sādhya, even if the way we become aware of that relation differs. Exam questions may present familiar examples and ask which type is illustrated. Hence A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, failing to mention how these distinctions are used in UGC NET questions. Although A, B, C and D are conceptually correct, they lack the explicit exam connection. Therefore this option is not fully satisfactory.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it includes F, which denies the role of vyāpti in these inferences. In Nyaya, the reliability of any anumāna depends on an underlying vyāpti, so claiming independence contradicts the theory. Including F makes the combination inconsistent.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it leaves out A and includes F, thus losing the description of pūrvavat while accepting the false claim about vyāpti. Without A, one of the three types is not represented, and with F, the relation to invariable concomitance is misdescribed.

Option D:
Option D is correct as it gathers all true statements about the threefold classification and its testing in exams while excluding the one statement that wrongly severs the link with vyāpti. It therefore matches the Indian logic account used in UGC NET.

Purvavat anumana proceeds from knowledge of a present cause to a future effect that has not yet occurred. Observing dark clouds and inferring impending rain illustrates this pattern. Nyaya classifies such reasoning as purvavat because the inferred event is temporally posterior to the observed basis. Hence the inference described in the stem is purvavat anumana.

Option A:
Option A is correct since purvavat literally means “from the prior” and is defined as inference from cause to effect. It fits the temporal direction exemplified by clouds predicting rain.

Option B:
Option B, sesavat, goes from effect to cause, such as inferring past rain from a flooded river, which reverses the direction of temporal inference.

Option C:
Option C, samanyatodrsta, involves inference based on general uniformities not strictly causal, such as inferring motion from changing position.

Option D:
Option D, kevalanvayi, is a classification based on the nature of vyapti, not on temporal ordering of cause and effect.

Statements A, B, C and E accurately describe the threefold classification of inference in Indian logic and its exam relevance, while D is false. Pūrvavat moves from cause to effect, śeṣavat from effect to cause, and sāmānyato dṛṣṭa rests on general observation not limited to a single causal link. Far from being rejected, all three are taken as legitimate types of inference, and UGC NET frequently uses examples to test this distinction. Thus A, B, C, E only is the correct group of statements.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, ignoring that exam questions may directly ask students to classify examples according to these types. A, B, C only therefore does not fully satisfy the question requirements.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes all of the true descriptive and exam-related statements while excluding D, which wrongly claims that one type is rejected. This combination matches standard Indian philosophy texts.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it excludes A, losing the explanation of pūrvavat inference and thereby presenting only part of the scheme. B, C, E only does not cover the entire threefold division.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it leaves out B, failing to include śeṣavat, and so A, C, E only is incomplete.

Purvavat anumana moves from knowledge of a cause to knowledge of an effect that has not yet manifested. Observing dark, moisture-laden clouds and concluding that it will rain is a classic example. The temporal sequence runs from earlier cause to later effect, which is why this type is called purvavat. Nyaya recognises it as one important pattern of causal inference.

Option A:
Option A, sesavat, reverses the direction by inferring a prior cause from a present effect and thus does not fit the forward-looking pattern described in the stem.

Option B:
Option B, samanyatodrsta, involves inference from general concomitance that is not necessarily causal and therefore is too broad and differently structured.

Option C:
Option C, anvayavyatireki, classifies inference by the way vyapti is established through positive and negative instances, not by the temporal relation between cause and effect.

Option D:
Option D is correct because purvavat literally means "based on the prior" and specifically captures the move from earlier causal conditions to later outcomes.

Pūrvavat anumāna reasons from a presently observed cause to a future effect, based on previous experience of that sequence. Seeing dark, rising clouds and inferring that rain will soon occur is the stock illustration: clouds are known to precede rainfall. The temporal direction is from what comes earlier (cause) to what comes later (effect).

Option A:
Option A, inferring fire from smoke already on a hill, is typically treated as śeṣavat or anvayavyatireki, since smoke is regarded as the effect of an already present fire, not as a cause of future fire.

Option B:
Option B, inferring past rain from a swollen river, moves from a present effect to a past cause and is a standard example of śeṣavat anumāna.

Option C:
Option C correctly shows a present cause (dark clouds) used to infer a future effect (rain), which is the defining pattern of pūrvavat.

Option D:
Option D, inferring air from the movement of leaves, is an example of sāmānyatodṛṣṭa anumāna, where a generally observed association (moving leaves with air) is used to infer an unseen entity, not specifically a cause–future-effect sequence.

Purvavat anumana proceeds from knowledge of a presently observed cause to knowledge of a future effect that has not yet occurred. Observing dark, moisture-laden clouds and inferring impending rain exemplifies this pattern. The temporal direction runs from earlier cause to later effect. Consequently, Nyaya classifies such reasoning as purvavat inference.

Option A:
Option A is correct because purvavat literally means "based on the prior" and captures the movement from cause, which is temporally prior, to effect, which is posterior. It highlights one important way in which temporal relations inform inference.

Option B:
Option B, sesavat, goes from an observed effect back to an earlier cause and thus reverses the temporal direction described in the stem.

Option C:
Option C, samanyatodrsta, relies on general uniformities of coexistence rather than specific causal chains and therefore does not fit the cloud–rain example as neatly.

Option D:
Option D, kevalanvayi, classifies inference by the nature of vyapti (only positive instances) rather than by the temporal relationship between cause and effect.