UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Vyapti expresses the universal, exceptionless relation between the reason (hetu) and the property to be proved (sadhya). It states that wherever the hetu is present, the sadhya is also present, and this relation underwrites the legitimacy of inference. Recognising vyapti is thus crucial for establishing that the observed sign reliably indicates the inferred property. Therefore the relation described is called vyapti.

Option A:
Option A, paksha, is the subject or locus in which the sadhya is to be established, such as the hill in the classic smoke–fire example. It is not the relation between hetu and sadhya themselves. Thus paksha does not match the description.

Option B:
Option B is correct because vyapti specifically denotes the invariable concomitance that connects reason and probandum. Without such a universal linkage, anumana would not yield reliable knowledge. This aligns exactly with the statement in the question.

Option C:
Option C, drstanta, is the example that illustrates the vyapti, such as a kitchen where smoke and fire are observed together. It helps make the underlying relation clear but is not itself the relation.

Option D:
Option D, nigamana, is the concluding statement in the five-membered form of inference and represents the final step of asserting the proved thesis. It does not name the universal connection that licenses the inference.

Vyapti denotes the universal and exceptionless relation connecting the reason (hetu) with the probandum (sadhya). It states that wherever the hetu is present, the sadhya is also present, and wherever the sadhya is absent, the hetu is absent. Establishing vyapti through positive and negative instances is what justifies moving from a perceived sign to an unperceived conclusion in anumana. Therefore the relation described in the stem is called vyapti.

Option A:
Option A, paksha, is the subject or locus in which the sadhya is to be established, such as the hill in the classic smoke–fire example. It is not the relation between hetu and sadhya.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, is the reason or middle term that indicates the presence of the sadhya, like smoke indicating fire. While hetu participates in vyapti, it is not the name of the universal relation itself.

Option C:
Option C is correct because vyapti captures the pattern “wherever this, there that” which gives inferential force to anumana. Without vyapti, the step from observed sign to unobserved property would lack rational justification.

Option D:
Option D, drstanta, is the illustrative example that shows the vyapti in a familiar case, such as a kitchen where smoke and fire always go together. It is evidence for vyapti, not the relation itself.

Vyapti expresses the pervasion relation that underwrites inference: the hetu is found only where the sadhya is found. Knowing vyapti allows one to move securely from the presence of the hetu in the paksha to the presence of the sadhya there. It is established through observing positive and negative instances or through reliable testimony. Thus the universal connection described in the stem is called vyapti.

Option A:
Option A, paksha, is the individual subject where the inference is applied and cannot denote a general relation between two properties.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, is the specific reason or sign used in a given inference, such as smoke, not the general concomitance between smoke and fire.

Option C:
Option C, drstanta, is the example that illustrates vyapti in a familiar case like a kitchen. It helps show the relation but is not itself the relation.

Option D:
Option D is correct because vyapti is technically defined as the invariable concomitance of hetu with sadhya. Without vyapti, inference would lack its justificatory basis.

Statements A, B, C, D and E accurately describe the five members of the Nyaya syllogism, whereas F is incorrect. Pratijñā is the initial thesis, hetu provides the reason, udāharaṇa states the universal concomitance with an example, and upanaya links that rule to the pakṣa. Nigamana then concludes by restating the thesis in light of these steps. Pakṣa is not absent; it is the locus where the sādhya is to be established, so F misrepresents its role. Therefore A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it collects exactly the five true statements that correspond to the traditional Nyaya account of reasoning. It excludes F, which wrongly claims that pakṣa has no logical role, even though it is central as the subject of inference. This combination thus reflects both the structure and intent of the pañcāvayava form.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it omits E, failing to mention nigamana, the concluding member that restates the thesis. Without E, the picture of the five-membered structure is incomplete. Consequently A, B, C and D only cannot be chosen as correct.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes F and omits A. Including F accepts the false claim that pakṣa is absent, and leaving out A ignores the naming of pratijñā as the first member. Both problems make B, C, D, E and F only an unacceptable option.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it accepts F along with A, C and D and leaves out B and E. Omitting hetu and nigamana removes crucial steps, while adopting F distorts the status of pakṣa. Therefore A, C, D and F only does not represent the set of correct statements.

Vyapti expresses the universal and invariable relation between the hetu and the sadhya. It states that wherever the middle term is present, the major term is also present. This unbroken concomitance underlies the validity of inference in Indian logic. Therefore the relation described in the stem is called vyapti.

Option A:
Option A, paksha, is the subject or locus in which the middle term is asserted. It refers to the site of inference, not to the invariable relation itself. Hence paksha is not the correct term here.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, is the middle term or reason cited to prove the sadhya. While hetu participates in vyapti, it is not the name of the relation of concomitance. Thus hetu does not answer the question precisely.

Option C:
Option C correctly names vyapti as the universal concomitance between hetu and sadhya. It is expressed in examples like “wherever there is smoke, there is fire”. Therefore vyapti is the best fit for the stem.

Option D:
Option D, nigamana, signifies the concluding statement of the five-membered inference. It summarises what has been established but does not denote the underlying relation. Consequently nigamana is not the answer sought.