UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B and C correctly define converse, inverse and contrapositive for a conditional, and E is true because an implication is logically equivalent to its contrapositive. D is false, as a conditional is not in general equivalent to its converse. Thus the complete set of correct statements about these relationships is A, B, C and E.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, failing to note the important fact that a conditional and its contrapositive are equivalent. Without E, the description of logical relations is not full. Therefore A, B and C only cannot be the correct answer.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it gathers the three accurate definitions and the key equivalence between the original implication and its contrapositive, while excluding D which overstates the relation to the converse. This matches standard treatments of conditionals used in UGC NET.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes D, which is false (a conditional is not always equivalent to its converse), and it also omits E, which is true. So it mixes a false statement with missing a true one.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits A, leaving out the explicit definition of the converse, and thus does not list all correct statements. Therefore B, C and E only is not acceptable.

A biconditional statement links two propositions in such a way that each implies the other. The form "p if and only if q" means that p is true exactly when q is true and false exactly when q is false. This captures a strong equivalence relation between the two. Therefore the compound statement described in the stem is called a biconditional.

Option A:
Option A, disjunctive, refers to a statement formed with "or", which is true when at least one of its disjuncts is true. It does not require mutual implication or matching truth values in the way a biconditional does. Hence disjunctive is not the correct answer.

Option B:
Option B, conjunctive, denotes a statement formed with "and" where both components must be true, but it does not capture the idea that each condition guarantees the other’s truth. Conjunction lacks the mutual equivalence of "if and only if".

Option C:
Option C, conditional, refers to one-way implication of the form "if p, then q". While a biconditional includes two such conditionals, the term conditional alone does not express the bi-directional nature specified in the question.

Option D:
Option D is correct because biconditional precisely names the connective that asserts "p if and only if q". Its truth table reflects equality of truth values between the component propositions and embodies logical equivalence.

Sapaksha consists of positive instances that share both the hetu and the sadhya with the paksha. These examples support the claim that wherever the hetu is found, the sadhya is also present. They thus help establish vyapti by showing similar cases. Therefore the class of instances described in the stem is called sapaksha.

Option A:
Option A, vipaksha, is the class of negative instances where the sadhya is absent. For a proper vyapti, the hetu should also be absent there. This contrasts with sapaksha and so does not match the description.

Option B:
Option B correctly names sapaksha as the set of similar cases that exhibit both the reason and the property to be proved. Such cases strengthen the inferential link between hetu and sadhya. Hence sapaksha is the best answer.

Option C:
Option C, paksha, refers to the specific subject under consideration, not to a class of supporting examples. It is one locus of inference rather than many instances. Therefore paksha is not suitable here.

Option D:
Option D, vyapti, is the universal concomitance relation itself, not the collection of examples that illustrate it. While sapaksha helps in knowing vyapti, it is conceptually distinct. Thus vyapti is not correct.

Statements A–E are correct: A and B define completeness/consistency; C notes the basic Gödel point for arithmetic; D applies to propositional logic; E matches exam expectations. F is false because in an inconsistent system, contradictions can trivialise reasoning (anything may follow), making it unsafe. Thus A, B, C, D and E only is correct.

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

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits A (definition of completeness).

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

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

Mood is determined by listing the categorical types of the major premise, minor premise and conclusion in order, using the letters A, E, I and O. For example, a syllogism with all three statements universal affirmative is said to have mood AAA. Mood, together with figure, fully specifies the syllogism's form. Hence the pattern of types described in the stem is called the mood of the syllogism.

Option A:
Option A is correct because mood captures exactly which kinds of categorical propositions are used and in what order. This information is crucial for checking validity against standard lists of valid moods in each figure.

Option B:
Option B, figure, as noted, is determined by the arrangement of the middle term in the premises, not by the types of propositions. While both mood and figure describe form, they refer to different aspects.

Option C:
Option C, schema, is sometimes used more broadly for generic argument patterns, but in traditional syllogistic logic, the specific term for the series of A, E, I, O labels is mood, not schema.

Option D:
Option D, order, is too vague and could refer to many sequences; it is not the standard technical label used in syllogistic theory.

Hetu is the middle term or reason whose presence in the paksha, together with an established vyapti, justifies the conclusion that the sadhya also occurs there. Smoke functions as such a reason in the famous Nyaya example. Its role is to connect the observed fact on the hill with the unobserved presence of fire. Thus "smoke" in the sentence given is the hetu.

Option A:
Option A, paksha, refers to the subject "hill" and not to the property used as evidence. The hill is where the reasoning is applied, not the reason itself.

Option B:
Option B, sadhya, is the probandum "fiery" which the argument aims to prove; it stands as the conclusion rather than the ground.

Option C:
Option C, vyapti, names the universal connection between smoke and fire but is not identical with the particular instance of smoke on the hill that acts as the hetu.

Option D:
Option D is correct because hetu is precisely characterised as the inferential sign that, when present in the paksha, indicates the presence of the sadhya.

Statements A and B describe modus ponens and modus tollens, which are valid forms, while C and D describe affirming the consequent and denying the antecedent, which are invalid. E correctly classifies A, B vs C, D in exam terms, and F restates that only A and B among the four are correct patterns. Thus A, B, E and F are true, whereas C and D are false as descriptions of valid forms. This makes A, B, E and F only the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits F, which explicitly summarises that only A and B (among A–D) are valid patterns.

Option B:
Option B is wrong since it includes C, thereby treating affirming the consequent as if it yielded a valid inference.

Option C:
Option C is correct because it includes all true statements (A, B, E, F) and excludes the false ones (C, D).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect as it omits A (modus ponens), which is one of the key valid forms.

Statements A, B, C, D and E are correct, while F is false. A and B give standard readings of universal and existential quantifiers, and C and D correctly symbolise universal and existential English sentences. E is right that quantifiers operate relative to a chosen domain of objects. F is wrong because formalisation with quantifiers can actually clarify reasoning rather than make it impossible to understand. Thus A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it collects all the true statements about basic quantifier use and excludes only F, which overstates the difficulty of symbolic form. It accurately reflects how universal and existential claims are treated in predicate logic and in exam questions. Therefore it is the appropriate answer.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E, the statement about domain of discourse, which is a fundamental part of quantifier semantics. While A, B, C and D are true, leaving out E makes the description of quantifiers less precise. Hence A, B, C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes F among the correct statements. By treating F as true, it implies that quantifiers necessarily obscure reasoning for UGC NET students, which is false. Including this error invalidates the whole combination.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B and E and includes F. Without B, the meaning of the existential quantifier is left unstated, and accepting F contradicts the role of formalisation. So A, C, D and F only does not capture the full set of correct statements.

Savyabhicara hetu is defective because it "deviates" by appearing in cases that have the probandum and in cases that lack it. This irregularity shows that the alleged vyapti does not hold universally. As a result, the presence of such a hetu in the paksha gives no reliable ground for inferring the sadhya. Nyaya marks this failure with the label savyabhicara hetvabhasa.

Option A:
Option A, viruddha, refers to a reason that actually proves the opposite of the intended conclusion, which is a different and stronger kind of defect than mere irregularity.

Option B:
Option B, asiddha, concerns reasons that are not established in the paksha at all; the problem there is uncertainty about presence, not inconsistency across instances.

Option C:
Option C, badhita, is a reason whose supposed vyapti is defeated by a stronger pramana, such as perception or scripture, rather than one that simply shows wandering association.

Option D:
Option D is correct because savyabhicara literally suggests "deviating" and is used by Nyaya precisely for reasons that fail to exhibit constant agreement with the sadhya in sapaksha and vipaksha cases.

Statements A, B and C give Nyaya’s threefold division of causes with examples, and E is true about exam usage. D is false because Nyaya allows multiple kinds of causes to be involved in one effect. Thus A, B, C and E only is correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because 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 (full classification).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits B (samavāyi example), making it incomplete.

A, B, D and E are correct; C is false. The gavaya case involves prior verbal description and memory plus later perception and comparison, so it is not “without memory”. Some schools subsume upamāna under other pramāṇas; UGC NET may ask to identify it via examples.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E (exam identification), which is true.

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes C (false).

Option C:
Option C is incomplete because it omits A (Nyaya recognises upamāna distinctly), which is true.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes C (false).

Inductive arguments aim to make their conclusions probable rather than certain. An inductive argument is considered strong when the truth of its premises would make the conclusion very unlikely to be false. This probabilistic standard fits the principle stated in the stem. Hence the description mainly applies to inductive arguments.

Option A:
Option A, symbolic, simply refers to a way of representing arguments using symbols and can apply to many forms. It does not specify a particular probabilistic standard of strength. Therefore symbolic is not the correct answer.

Option B:
Option B, deductive, is evaluated by validity, where it is impossible for true premises to yield a false conclusion. Deduction does not usually talk of degrees of probability or strength. Thus deductive arguments are assessed differently from what the stem describes.

Option C:
Option C, fallacious, denotes arguments containing errors in reasoning. A fallacious argument is weak or invalid by definition and does not satisfy the stated condition. Hence fallacious cannot be correct here.

Option D:
Option D correctly identifies inductive arguments as those judged by how unlikely it is for the premises to be true while the conclusion is false. Strong induction therefore fits the standard mentioned in the question.

Contraries are propositions that cannot both be true at the same time but can both be false. On the square of opposition, the universal affirmative 'All S are P' and the universal negative 'No S are P' have this relation. There are circumstances where neither statement holds, making both false. Thus the relationship described in the stem is that of contraries.

Option A:
Option A, contradictories, are pairs of propositions that cannot both be true and cannot both be false; exactly one must be true. This relation holds between A and O or E and I, not between A and E. Therefore contradictories is not correct here.

Option B:
Option B, subcontraries, are propositions that cannot both be false but can both be true, a relation found between I and O propositions. Universal statements do not stand in this relation, so subcontraries cannot be the right answer.

Option C:
Option C, subalterns, refers to pairs where the truth of a universal implies the truth of its corresponding particular, such as A implying I. This is a different relation from the one asked about in the question.

Option D:
Option D is correct because contraries specifically describe the relation between universal affirmative and universal negative propositions on the square of opposition, matching the description in the stem.

A, B, C and E are correct; D is false. Soundness is a property of valid deductive arguments with true premises, not something “inductive rather than deductive”. Deduction aims at certainty (given validity and true premises), induction at probability; if a deductive conclusion is false then validity or premises fail. Distinguishing them is common in UGC NET.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because A is true; it wrongly includes A as wrong.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because C is true; grouping it with D as wrong is incorrect.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because B and E are true; treating them as wrong makes the option invalid.

Option D:
Option D is correct because D is the only wrong statement.

Illicit process is the general name for the error that occurs when a term is treated as undistributed in a premise but then distributed in the conclusion. This means the conclusion speaks about all members of a class even though the premises did not justify such breadth. It violates the rule that any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the corresponding premise. Therefore the fallacy described is illicit process.

Option A:
Option A, ambiguous middle, is not the standard name for a recognised categorical fallacy. Although ambiguity can cause errors, it is not specifically about the distribution mismatch between premise and conclusion mentioned in the stem.

Option B:
Option B is correct because illicit process covers both illicit major and illicit minor as specific cases. In each case, the problematic feature is that the conclusion extends the scope of a term beyond what the premises support. This matches the description in the question.

Option C:
Option C, contradictory middle, is not a conventional label in syllogistic logic and does not refer to the distribution of terms between premises and conclusion. It therefore cannot be the correct answer.

Option D:
Option D, circularity, refers to an argument that assumes what it is supposed to prove. While also fallacious, circular reasoning does not primarily concern whether a term is distributed or undistributed.