UGCNET Questions

The phrase “either P or Q, but not both” specifies exclusive disjunction. This means at least one of P or Q is true, and they are not simultaneously true. Symbolically, we combine the inclusive disjunction P ∨ Q with the negation of their conjunction, ¬(P ∧ Q). The conjunction of these two conditions, (P ∨ Q) ∧ ¬(P ∧ Q), precisely encodes exclusivity.

Option A:
Option A, P ∨ Q, is inclusive “or” and allows the possibility that both P and Q are true, which is not allowed in the exclusive reading.

Option B:
Option B adds the restriction that P and Q cannot both hold, yielding the desired “one but not both” condition.

Option C:
Option C, P ∧ Q, demands that both P and Q are true together, the opposite of what exclusivity requires.

Option D:
Option D expresses logical equivalence or biconditional, requiring P and Q to share the same truth value, which is different from exclusive disjunction.

Syādvāda implements anekāntavāda in language by prefacing statements with “syāt” (from a certain standpoint) and expanding them into seven possible forms. These combine affirmation, negation and indescribability under specific conditions. The scheme allows Jains to express how a claim can be true in some respects and false in others. It thus provides a logical tool for handling many sided reality in discourse.

Option A:
Option A contradicts the Jain project, because syādvāda complicates simple two valued logic rather than enforcing it.

Option B:
Option B correctly describes syādvāda as a sevenfold conditional mode of predication using “syāt” to mark standpoint dependence.

Option C:
Option C reduces the doctrine to ritual, ignoring its conceptual and logical content in Jain philosophy.

Option D:
Option D is too sceptical; Jains hold that language can express qualified truths when properly framed by standpoints.

A set of statements is inconsistent if they cannot all be true at the same time. Saying “Some teachers are strict” asserts the existence of at least one strict teacher. Saying “No teacher is strict” denies that any teacher is strict. These two claims cannot both be true together; if one is true, the other must be false. Hence, this pair is logically inconsistent.

Option A:
Option A’s two statements are compatible, because if all poets are imaginative, then certainly some poets are imaginative, so both can be true together.

Option B:
Option B directly pits an existential claim against a universal negative about the same property, creating a clear contradiction.

Option C:
Option C is consistent because if all birds can fly and penguins are birds, it follows that penguins can fly within that system, even if this conflicts with real world facts.

Option D:
Option D is also consistent, allowing for a mixed group of scientists, some honest and some not, which poses no logical problem.