UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

An analogical argument compares two cases and infers that what is true of one is likely true of the other. The argument becomes stronger when the cases share many relevant similarities. These similarities must bear on the conclusion and not be superficial. Therefore the factor described in the stem is the number of relevant similarities.

Option A:
Option A correctly identifies relevant similarities as the key feature that supports a strong analogy. When similarities are numerous and closely connected to the property inferred, the reasoning gains force. Hence this option is the best answer.

Option B:
Option B, irrelevant differences, if numerous, actually weaken an analogy by highlighting disanalogies. Differences that have no bearing on the conclusion cannot support the inference. Thus they do not strengthen the argument as described.

Option C:
Option C, emotional appeals, may influence acceptance of an argument but are not logical grounds for its strength. They relate to persuasion rather than to the structural quality of the analogy. Therefore emotional appeals are not the factor mentioned.

Option D:
Option D, rhetorical questions, are stylistic devices that may accompany arguments. They do not determine the underlying similarity relations between cases. Consequently rhetorical questions are not the correct answer.

Statements A, B, D and E correctly describe what makes analogical arguments stronger or weaker and how they are used in reasoning. C is false because irrelevant similarities do not necessarily strengthen an analogy; relevance matters. Thus A, B, D and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes C (false).

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E (role in hypothesis generation).

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (relevant similarity is central).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes C (false).

A strong analogical argument highlights similarities that are relevant to the property being inferred rather than piling up many trivial or unrelated likenesses. The more closely the cited similarities are connected to the conclusion, the stronger the analogy. It does not require the cases to be identical, but it does require that relevant respects be shared in a way that supports the projected claim.

Option A:
Option A relies on superficial similarities, which may look impressive but do not actually support the specific conclusion, weakening the analogy.

Option B:
Option B focuses on relevance and connection to the conclusion, which is the hallmark of a persuasive analogical inference.

Option C:
Option C demands total identity, which is rarely achievable and is not necessary for analogical reasoning; analogy works precisely because the cases are not identical.

Option D:
Option D suggests that a good analogy can never be challenged, which is incorrect; analogical arguments remain defeasible and open to counterexamples.

Statements C and E are the wrong statements here. A is true because analogical reasoning transfers patterns from a known case to a similar new case. B is correct as only similarities in relevant features support a strong analogy. D is true because analogies often yield plausible but not absolutely certain conclusions. C is wrong since any superficial similarity does not guarantee a strong conclusion, and E is wrong because some dissimilarities may be irrelevant and do not automatically destroy the analogy. Thus the wrong statements are C and E only.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it claims only C is wrong and ignores E. E overstates the effect of any dissimilarity, so failing to include it makes the option incomplete.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it identifies precisely C and E as problematic: C lowers the bar on relevance too far, while E raises the bar on similarity unrealistically high.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it marks only E as wrong and treats C as acceptable, even though C clearly exaggerates the sufficiency of any similarity.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it wrongly treats B as wrong, even though B is a standard requirement for a strong analogy.

Statements A, B, D and E are correct, while C and F are false. Analogical reasoning does infer further properties from recognised similarities, and the relevance of those similarities is crucial for strength. Differences between cases can weaken an analogy, and UGC NET tests both verbal and non-verbal analogies. C is wrong because a single superficial similarity rarely makes an analogy strong, and F is wrong because in strong analogies, similarities are more central than differences. Hence A, B, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, ignoring the fact that analogies are tested in both verbal and non-verbal formats. Although A, B and D are true, leaving out E means an important exam-oriented point is missing. Therefore this option does not capture all correct statements.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it drops A and includes only B, D and E. Without A, the general idea of analogical reasoning as inference from similarity is not explicitly stated. This omission makes the description of analogy conceptually thinner than the full list of correct statements.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it lists exactly A, B, D and E, which jointly define analogical reasoning, its evaluation and its appearance in the UGC NET syllabus. It excludes C, which exaggerates the sufficiency of any similarity, and F, which misdescribes the role of differences. Thus Option C matches the set of correct statements.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it adds C, a false statement about superficial similarity always being enough, to an otherwise correct group. Including C promotes a misunderstanding about how analogies should be evaluated. As a result, A, B, C, D and E only cannot be the correct answer.