UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, D and E accurately describe the core roles of pakṣa, sādhya, hetu, sapakṣa and vipakṣa, whereas F is false. The hill–smoke–fire example neatly illustrates how these roles work together in an inference. Nyaya insists that the hetu must actually qualify the pakṣa; if the reason is absent there, the inference collapses. Sapakṣa and vipakṣa then help to test the reliability of the connection between hetu and sādhya in other cases. Hence F contradicts a basic requirement of Indian inference theory.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, failing to mention the important supporting notions of sapakṣa and vipakṣa that appear in many exam items. While A, B, C and D are correct, they do not fully capture the wider inferential context. Therefore A, B, C and D only is not a complete answer.

Option B:
Option B is wrong as it leaves out A and includes only B, C, D and E. Without A, the definition of pakṣa as the locus of inference is missing, even though it is central to the question. This omission means B, C, D and E only cannot be the correct combination.

Option C:
Option C is correct since it gathers all five true statements and excludes F, which wrongly allows a hetu that does not apply to the pakṣa. It presents the standard structure of Indian inference as taught in UGC NET syllabi. Hence A, B, C, D and E only is the appropriate answer.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B, leaving out the definition of sādhya as the probandum, and includes only A, C, D and E. Without B, the description of the inferential triad is incomplete. As such, this option does not represent all the correct statements.

Statements A, B, C, D and F are correct, while E is false. Kevalānvayi relies on only positive instances, and kevalavyatireki is known mainly through negative instances where the absence of one correlates with the absence of the other. Anvayavyatireki involves both positive and negative agreement, and the classic smoke–fire example is typically classified this way. F is correct that recognising these forms helps exam candidates analyse anumāna. E is wrong because if hetu appears in vipakṣa, it fails the exclusiveness condition and cannot be a proper ground. Therefore A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete since it stops at A, B and C and leaves out D and F, which add the standard example and its examination relevance. Although A, B and C are conceptually accurate, they do not provide the full picture. Hence A, B and C only cannot be accepted.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits B and includes only A, C, D and F. Without B, the specific character of kevalavyatireki inference is not properly captured, reducing clarity. Thus A, C, D and F only does not list all the true statements.

Option C:
Option C is wrong as it replaces A with B, C, D and F but omits A. While B, C, D and F are true, leaving out A removes the description of kevalānvayi, one of the three named types. This makes the combination incomplete.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it gathers A, B, C, D and F, covering all three inference types, a paradigm example and the exam context, while rejecting E, which violates the conditions for a proper hetu. It therefore matches the set of correct statements expected in UGC NET Indian logic.

Statements A, B, C and E correctly summarise the Nyaya conception of anumāna, while D is false. Inference crucially depends on recognising a universal concomitance (vyāpti) between hetu and sādhya and then applying it to a pakṣa, as in the smoke–fire example. Nyaya treats inference as a separate pramāṇa alongside perception and others, and exam questions frequently test this structure. The suggestion that inference never presupposes any universal relation contradicts the very idea of vyāpti, so D must be rejected.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it stops at A and B, omitting both the classical example of smoke and fire and the explicit exam relevance expressed in C and E. A, B only therefore fails to include all the correct statements the stem is pointing toward.

Option B:
Option B improves on A by adding the example in C but still neglects E, which mentions that UGC NET questions highlight these components. A, B, C only thus remains an incomplete representation of the correct information.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it leaves out A, the definition that inference arises from applying vyāpti, which is central to the concept. Even though B, C and E are true, missing A means this option cannot be the right answer.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it gathers all the true statements that capture both the conceptual and exam-related aspects of anumāna while excluding D, which denies the role of universal relation. It therefore matches the accepted understanding of Indian inference.

Statements A, B, C, D and F correctly explain how vyāpti is supported in Indian logic, while E is false. Nyaya stresses repeated observation without exception, looking at agreement in presence (anvaya) and agreement in absence (vyatireka). Tarka helps eliminate competing hypotheses, strengthening confidence in the concomitance. If a genuine counterexample appears, the vyāpti must be revised, so E is incorrect. UGC NET often uses the smoke–fire example to test recognition of these methods. Hence A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits F, missing the explicit note that such methods appear in exam questions. Although A, B, C and D are conceptually sound, they do not link back to UGC NET practice. Therefore this option is not fully adequate.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it omits A and includes only B, C, D and F, failing to mention the central requirement of repeated observation and absence of counterexamples. Without A, the empirical grounding of vyāpti is underplayed. This omission makes the option incomplete.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as it includes E, which claims that vyāpti is irrevocable once established. The very idea of counterexamples shows that generalisations can and should be revised when new evidence arises. Including E therefore undermines the logic of empirical inference.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it unites the descriptive and methodological points about anvaya, vyatireka and tarka with the exam style of questioning, while rejecting the rigid, unscientific claim in E. It reflects both traditional theory and its modern pedagogical use.

Statements A, B, C and F correctly describe vyāpti in Indian logic, while D and E are false. Vyāpti captures the necessary connection between hetu and sādhya discovered through repeated observation and the ruling out of counterinstances. Nyaya treats this relation as the essential ground of any valid inference, and the smoke–fire example is frequently used in teaching and exams. D is wrong because a single coincidence does not establish invariable concomitance, and E is wrong because Nyaya does not regard vyāpti as purely a priori; empirical observation and reasoning are both involved.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete since it omits F, leaving out the specific exam-oriented reference to the smoke–fire example that often illustrates vyāpti. While A, B and C are true, they do not fully reflect how the concept is used pedagogically. Therefore A, B and C only is not entirely adequate.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes D, which claims that one accidental co-occurrence is enough to secure vyāpti, contradicting the insistence on repeated, exceptionless observation. Including D invalidates the combination. Hence A, B, C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it gathers the core definitional and methodological points along with the common example used in UGC NET materials, while excluding D and E, both of which misrepresent the nature of vyāpti. Thus A, B, C and F only is the right answer.

Option D:
Option D is wrong as it omits A and includes only B, C and F, leaving out the very definition of vyāpti as invariable concomitance. Without A, the candidate would not know what relation is being discussed. Therefore B, C and F only cannot be the correct choice.