UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Kevalavyatireki inference obtains vyapti from observations that wherever the sadhya is absent, the hetu is also absent, without finding any positive instance of their co-presence. The relation is thus supported solely by negative concomitance. Nyaya treats this as a distinctive pattern of inferential support. Therefore the type of inference mentioned in the stem is kevalavyatireki.

Option A:
Option A, kevalanvayi, depends exclusively on positive instances and does not appeal to joint absences, making it structurally different from what is described.

Option B:
Option B, anvayavyatireki, integrates both affirmative and negative cases and is more inclusive than the purely negative evidence scenario here.

Option C:
Option C, purvavat, classifies inference by its cause-to-effect temporal direction rather than by the pattern of positive or negative instances used to establish vyapti.

Option D:
Option D is correct because kevalavyatireki literally means "only by negative concomitance" and is defined in Nyaya precisely in terms of reliance on shared absences for establishing the universal relation.

Kevalanvayi inference rests on vyapti that is affirmed solely through cases of joint presence; there is no instance where the hetu occurs apart from the sadhya. Thus only positive concomitance is used to secure the relation. A classic example is inferring “pot is nameable” from “pot is knowable” when all knowables are nameable. Hence the pattern described in the stem is kevalanvayi.

Option A:
Option A, kevalavyatireki, relies only on negative instances where both hetu and sadhya are absent together and has no positive sapaksha cases, the opposite emphasis from kevalanvayi.

Option B:
Option B, anvayavyatireki, uses both positive and negative instances together to establish vyapti and is broader than the purely positive case discussed here.

Option C:
Option C, samanyatodrsta, is a different classification based on general regularity, not on whether vyapti is known from positive or negative instances.

Option D:
Option D is correct because kevalanvayi literally means “only by affirmative concomitance,” which matches the condition of having no counter-instance of hetu without sadhya.

Kevalavyatireki inference draws on a vyapti known only through joint absence of hetu and sadhya; there is no case in which both are present together that can be cited. The relation is captured purely by statements like “wherever there is no sadhya, there is no hetu.” Nyaya treats such reasoning as a special pattern where negative concomitance does all the justificatory work. Thus the inference described in the stem is kevalavyatireki.

Option A:
Option A is correct because kevalavyatireki literally means “only by negative concomitance,” matching the condition that the relation is confirmed through absences alone.

Option B:
Option B, kevalanvayi, is based solely on positive instances of joint presence and therefore stands in contrast to the pattern specified in the question.

Option C:
Option C, anvayavyatireki, uses both joint presence and joint absence, relying on a richer set of instances than the purely negative case.

Option D:
Option D, purvavat, classifies inference according to temporal cause–effect direction rather than by the positive or negative character of vyapti instances.