UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, D and E are correct, while C and F are false. Analogical reasoning does infer further properties from recognised similarities, and the relevance of those similarities is crucial for strength. Differences between cases can weaken an analogy, and UGC NET tests both verbal and non-verbal analogies. C is wrong because a single superficial similarity rarely makes an analogy strong, and F is wrong because in strong analogies, similarities are more central than differences. Hence A, B, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, ignoring the fact that analogies are tested in both verbal and non-verbal formats. Although A, B and D are true, leaving out E means an important exam-oriented point is missing. Therefore this option does not capture all correct statements.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect since it drops A and includes only B, D and E. Without A, the general idea of analogical reasoning as inference from similarity is not explicitly stated. This omission makes the description of analogy conceptually thinner than the full list of correct statements.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it lists exactly A, B, D and E, which jointly define analogical reasoning, its evaluation and its appearance in the UGC NET syllabus. It excludes C, which exaggerates the sufficiency of any similarity, and F, which misdescribes the role of differences. Thus Option C matches the set of correct statements.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it adds C, a false statement about superficial similarity always being enough, to an otherwise correct group. Including C promotes a misunderstanding about how analogies should be evaluated. As a result, A, B, C, D and E only cannot be the correct answer.

Sesavat anumana moves from a known effect to an unknown cause, as when one sees a flooded field and infers that it must have rained earlier. The conclusion concerns a prior event that explains the present state. Nyaya highlights such reasoning as a distinct type because the temporal order runs from later to earlier. Thus the inference described in the stem is sesavat anumana.

Option A:
Option A, purvavat, runs in the opposite direction from cause to future effect and does not fit cases where the cause is inferred after the effect.

Option B:
Option B is correct because sesavat literally means “like the remainder” and is used for inference where an unseen cause is posited to explain a presently experienced effect.

Option C:
Option C, samanyatodrsta, deals with general regularities not necessarily grounded in specific causal chains and so does not capture the effect-to-cause structure.

Option D:
Option D, kevalavyatireki, classifies inference by the pattern of vyapti, relying only on negative concomitance, which is a different basis of division.

Samanyatodrsta anumana draws on widely observed uniformities that need not be strictly causal, for example inferring that something is moving when its position is constantly changing. The basis is a general correlation between two features rather than a detailed causal analysis. Nyaya reserves this term for such inferences grounded in generic co-existence.

Option A:
Option A, purvavat, is tied specifically to cause-to-effect reasoning and thus does not cover all non-causal uniformities of the kind mentioned.

Option B:
Option B is correct because samanyatodrsta literally means "known from generality" and designates inferences that rely on broad patterns of association rather than on clearly articulated causal sequences.

Option C:
Option C, sesavat, is effect-to-cause inference and presupposes a causal explanation, which is not emphasised in the motion example.

Option D:
Option D, kevalavyatireki, describes a vyapti pattern based solely on negative instances and has nothing to do with the causal or non-causal character of the relation.

Statements A, B and C accurately describe key similarities and differences between Nyaya’s five-member syllogism and Aristotelian syllogisms, and E is true about syllabus emphasis. D is false because Aristotelian syllogisms often involve universal propositions. Thus A, B, C and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits E.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it omits A (five-member vs three-proposition contrast).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B (shared middle-term idea), so it is incomplete.

Statements A, B, C and E correctly explain the roles of the three terms in a categorical syllogism and their exam relevance, whereas D is false. The major term is indeed the predicate of the conclusion, the minor term its subject, and the middle term connects the premises but does not appear in the conclusion. A valid syllogism requires the middle term to be distributed at least once, so it cannot remain undistributed in both premises, making D incorrect. Therefore A, B, C and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits C and E, leaving out the description of the middle term and the explicit reference to exam use. A, B only reports only part of the true information and fails to capture the full set of correct statements.

Option B:
Option B improves on option A by including C, but it still omits E, which emphasises how these terms are tested in UGC NET. Since the question explicitly mentions such context, A, B, C only remains incomplete as an answer.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it gathers all the true statements about the three terms and their significance in exam questions while excluding D. This option reflects both the standard textbook account and the way syllogisms are handled in UGC NET Paper 1.

Option D:
Option D is wrong since it excludes A, the identification of the major term, and presents only a subset of true statements. B, C, E only does not include all the correct information and therefore cannot satisfy the requirement to pick all correct statements.

A proposition is the content of a declarative sentence that can be evaluated in terms of truth or falsity. Logical relations like implication, equivalence and contradiction are defined between propositions. Arguments are built out of propositions serving as premises and conclusions. Therefore the truth-evaluable statement described in the stem is known as a proposition.

Option A:
Option A, question, requests information and is not normally judged as true or false. While a question may presuppose propositions, it is not itself a proposition in standard logical usage. Hence question is not the correct term here.

Option B:
Option B, command, directs someone to perform an action and likewise does not have a truth value in the ordinary logical sense. Imperatives can be obeyed or disobeyed but not properly called true or false. Thus command does not match the description.

Option C:
Option C is correct because proposition is precisely the technical term for a statement that can be true or false. Propositions are the basic objects that logic studies in order to examine validity and soundness of reasoning. This makes proposition the appropriate answer.

Option D:
Option D, greeting, such as saying hello, serves a social function rather than asserting a fact about the world. Greetings are therefore outside the domain of truth-valued discourse. Consequently greeting cannot be the correct choice.

In the five-membered form of Indian inference, nigamana is the concluding statement that reasserts the original thesis after the intervening reasoning has been presented. It summarises the outcome that the sadhya has been established in the paksha. This step formally closes the inferential sequence. Therefore the final step described in the stem is called nigamana.

Option A:
Option A, pratijna, is the initial statement of the thesis to be proved, not its final restatement. It opens the inferential process rather than completing it. Thus pratijna is not the correct answer.

Option B:
Option B, hetu, provides the reason supporting the thesis and appears as the second step in the five-membered structure. While essential to the argument, hetu does not mark the conclusion.

Option C:
Option C, drstanta, gives an example that illustrates the universal connection between hetu and sadhya, such as the kitchen where smoke and fire co-occur. It helps justify vyapti but is not the concluding assertion.

Option D:
Option D is correct because nigamana explicitly names the stage at which the thesis is declared as proven based on the preceding steps. It is structurally analogous to the conclusion in Western syllogistic reasoning.

Statements A, C and D are correct, while B and E are false. Large, well-distributed samples support stronger generalisations, and anecdotes from one or two cases provide weak support for universal claims. Over-generalisation from limited data is a frequent pattern in exam questions, so D is also true. A biased sample cannot be treated as perfectly representative, and inductive support is not judged in the strict valid/invalid sense of deduction, which makes B and E incorrect. Therefore A, C, D only is the correct set.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits D, ignoring the explicit exam link to over-generalisation that the question mentions. A and C only therefore does not fully respond to the stem.

Option B:
Option B is correct as it groups together all true claims (A, C and D) while excluding B and E, which distort the nature of inductive reasoning. This matches logical reasoning strategies used for UGC NET.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it treats E as true even though inductive generalisations are usually graded by strength, not by the binary valid/invalid scheme. C, D, E only thus misclassifies a false statement as correct.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it includes B along with A, C and D; however B is false because a biased sample cannot be assumed representative. A, B, C, D only therefore includes an incorrect statement.

Statements A, B, C, D and F correctly describe how common connectives are handled when mapped into logic, while E is false. “Either p or q” is often inclusive in exams unless exclusivity is clearly indicated, and “neither…nor…” translates naturally as a conjunction of negations. The pattern for “exactly one” uses both disjunction and the negation of conjunction, and “both p and q” is simply conjunction. Because natural language “or” is context-sensitive, misreading it can cause mistakes, so F is right and E, which claims uniformity in all contexts, is wrong.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it leaves out F, which highlights the practical consequence of misinterpreting these connectives in exam situations. While A, B, C and D give accurate translations, they do not address how errors in interpretation affect performance. Thus A, B, C and D only does not fully answer the question.

Option B:
Option B is wrong because it includes E, which falsely states that natural language “or” always matches inclusive disjunction. In reality, “or” can be exclusive in many everyday contexts, so accepting E misrepresents typical usage. Including a false statement means this combination cannot be correct.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect since it omits A and includes only B, C, D and F. Without A, the usual exam practice regarding the interpretation of “either…or…” is not mentioned, which is central to the question. Consequently, this option does not contain all of the correct statements in the list.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it collects all the true statements A, B, C, D and F and properly excludes E, which overgeneralises about the meaning of “or”. It provides both the formal translations and the warning about misinterpretation in UGC NET reasoning.

The only wrong statement here is D; all of A, B, C and E are correct. In any valid categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed at least once; otherwise the fallacy of undistributed middle occurs.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it isolates D as the single wrong statement.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it wrongly treats A as wrong even though A correctly describes first-figure placement.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it wrongly treats B as wrong even though B correctly states distribution for “All S are P”.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it wrongly treats C as wrong even though “No S are P” distributes both terms.

Savikalpa pratyaksha is determinate perception that structures experience into an object qualified by properties, universals and relations. It enables us to make judgments such as "this is a blue pot" rather than having a vague awareness. For Nyaya, this stage is crucial for ordinary knowledge and communication. Thus the perception described in the stem is savikalpa pratyaksha.

Option A:
Option A, nirvikalpa, lacks explicit conceptual articulation and therefore cannot by itself support judgments that recognise class or name. It contrasts with the determinate character mentioned in the stem.

Option B:
Option B is correct because savikalpa literally means "with differentiations" and signifies that the object is presented along with distinguishing marks and universals. This fits the example of recognising something as a pot.

Option C:
Option C, yogaja, is yogic perception and concerns its extraordinary origin rather than the presence or absence of conceptual determinations in ordinary sense perception.

Option D:
Option D, samanyalaksana, is a type of extraordinary perception that apprehends universals specifically and is not the generic category for determinate awareness of individuals in everyday life.

Statements A, B, C and E are correct. D is false because difficulty alone does not make a statement paradoxical; paradox involves self-contradiction or unacceptable consequences. F is false since paradoxes often motivate refinement of logical systems rather than proving them useless. Therefore A, B, C and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes D and F.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes F.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes D and omits A.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes F and omits B.

A particular affirmative proposition has the form "Some S are P". It states that there exists at least one subject that is also a member of the predicate class. In the traditional classification, it is known as an I-type proposition and carries existential import. Thus the description in the stem corresponds to a particular affirmative proposition.

Option A:
Option A, universal negative, denies the predicate of all members of the subject class, as in "No S are P". It expresses a universal denial rather than an existential affirmation. Therefore universal negative does not fit the description.

Option B:
Option B, particular negative, asserts that some members of the subject class are not members of the predicate class, as in "Some S are not P". Although particular, it is negative in quality and thus differs from the affirmative character mentioned in the stem.

Option C:
Option C is correct because particular affirmative refers to a proposition that affirms membership for at least one subject in the predicate class. This limited but positive claim matches the phrase "at least one member" in the question.

Option D:
Option D, universal affirmative, goes beyond some members and asserts that all members of the subject class belong to the predicate class. Its universal scope makes it different from the partial claim described.

Statements A, B, C, D and F are correct, whereas E is false. Arthāpatti is indeed invoked to resolve otherwise puzzling combinations of facts, and the Devadatta example is the classical illustration. Anupalabdhi is taken by some schools as a means for cognising absence, and Mīmāṃsā argues that arthāpatti is irreducible to standard inference. F is also correct that UGC NET usually tests identification rather than full philosophical controversy. E is wrong because some schools accept these pramāṇas rather than reject them. Thus A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete since it omits F, overlooking how exam questions typically treat these topics at a recognition level rather than expect deep doctrinal analysis. While A, B, C and D are philosophically sound, they do not fully reflect the UGC NET perspective. Therefore A, B, C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it leaves out A and includes only B, C, D and F. Without A, the general idea of arthāpatti as postulation to resolve inconsistency is not explicitly stated. The lack of that basic concept weakens the explanation.

Option C:
Option C is correct as it assembles all the true statements, presenting both the examples and the school-level differences along with their exam relevance. It excludes E, which misrepresents the diversity of views among Indian systems. This combination therefore matches what candidates need to know for UGC NET.

Option D:
Option D is wrong since it includes E, implying that all schools reject these pramāṇas, and it omits B. Accepting E erases the distinctive doctrines of Mīmāṃsā and Vedānta, while omitting B hides the role of anupalabdhi. Hence A, C, D, E and F only cannot be chosen.

Saptabhangi nyaya is the technical name for the sevenfold pattern of predication that Jainas use to articulate syadvada. It lays out seven possible qualified statements about any object, combining affirmation, negation and indescribability in different ways. This scheme illustrates how many-sidedness can be logically expressed. Hence the sevenfold scheme mentioned in the stem is called saptabhangi nyaya.

Option A:
Option A, syadvada, is the broader doctrine of conditional predication that requires the use of "syat" but does not itself specify the particular sevenfold pattern. Saptabhangi is a more detailed articulation within syadvada.

Option B:
Option B, anekantavada, is the metaphysical doctrine about reality's many facets, not the specific logical schema for formulating statements.

Option C:
Option C, trairupya, refers to the three marks of a valid hetu in Nyaya inference and is unrelated to the Jaina sevenfold classification of judgments.

Option D:
Option D is correct because saptabhangi literally means "having seven limbs" and is the standard Jaina label for the ordered set of seven conditional predications.