UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

A, B, C and E correctly describe vyāpti, its establishment via sapakṣa/vipakṣa considerations, and its role in Nyaya inference; the smoke–fire example is standard. D is false because one coincidence cannot justify a universal invariable relation. Hence A, B, C and E only are correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D, which overclaims what one coincidence can establish.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E (the common illustrative example used in exam contexts).

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

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it omits B (the key sapakṣa/vipakṣa basis) and includes D (false).

A, B and C state the classic trairūpya conditions, and E is true about exam usage. D is false because allowing hetu in vipakṣa breaks the required negative concomitance. Hence A, B, C and E only are correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all three marks plus exam relevance and excludes D (false).

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E (exam application).

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (presence in pakṣa is essential).

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

Nyāya requires that a sound hetu meet three conditions: it must be present in the pakṣa (pakṣadharmatā), present in all sapakṣa where the sādhya is known to be present, and absent from all vipakṣa where the sādhya is known to be absent. Together these ensure relevance, positive support and lack of counter examples.

Option A:
Option A inverts the pattern by demanding absence in sapakṣa and presence in vipakṣa, which would make the hetu useless for proving the sādhya.

Option B:
Option B correctly states the trairūpya pattern: presence in pakṣa and sapakṣa, absence in vipakṣa.

Option C:
Option C starts by saying the hetu is absent in the pakṣa, which already violates pakṣadharmatā and makes it an asiddha hetu.

Option D:
Option D imposes an irrelevant restriction to scriptural examples and excludes empirical instances, which has nothing to do with the formal threefold requirement.