Reductio and contradiction – UGC NET Question

Statements A, B, C and D accurately describe reductio ad absurdum and its relation to prasaṅga, while E is false. In reductio, we assume the opposite of what we want to prove and derive a contradiction or absurd consequence, forcing us to reject that assumption and accept its negation. Buddhist prasaṅga uses a similar technique against an opponent’s thesis. However, merely having contradictory premises does not automatically constitute a proper reductio; the contradiction must be shown to arise from the specific assumption under test. Thus E is the only incorrect statement.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it singles out E as the sole wrong statement and preserves the correct description of reductio and its dialectical use in A, B, C and D. This option mirrors the structured method taught for proof by contradiction.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it also marks C as wrong even though C correctly states what is concluded when a contradiction arises from the assumed negation. C and E only therefore misclassifies a crucial step in reductio as incorrect.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it treats D as wrong along with E, despite D accurately noting the use of prasaṅga in Buddhist debates. D and E only thus fails to respect the historical connection.

Option D:
Option D is also incorrect since it includes B among the wrong statements, even though B correctly explains that we derive a contradiction or unacceptable consequence from the assumption. B, D and E only therefore cannot be accepted as the correct answer.