UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, C, D and F are correct, while E is false. Kevalānvayi relies on only positive instances, and kevalavyatireki is known mainly through negative instances where the absence of one correlates with the absence of the other. Anvayavyatireki involves both positive and negative agreement, and the classic smoke–fire example is typically classified this way. F is correct that recognising these forms helps exam candidates analyse anumāna. E is wrong because if hetu appears in vipakṣa, it fails the exclusiveness condition and cannot be a proper ground. Therefore A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete since it stops at A, B and C and leaves out D and F, which add the standard example and its examination relevance. Although A, B and C are conceptually accurate, they do not provide the full picture. Hence A, B and C only cannot be accepted.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits B and includes only A, C, D and F. Without B, the specific character of kevalavyatireki inference is not properly captured, reducing clarity. Thus A, C, D and F only does not list all the true statements.

Option C:
Option C is wrong as it replaces A with B, C, D and F but omits A. While B, C, D and F are true, leaving out A removes the description of kevalānvayi, one of the three named types. This makes the combination incomplete.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it gathers A, B, C, D and F, covering all three inference types, a paradigm example and the exam context, while rejecting E, which violates the conditions for a proper hetu. It therefore matches the set of correct statements expected in UGC NET Indian logic.

Statements A, B and C define the three Nyaya types of inference by reference to positive and negative correlations, and D notes that in all cases the notion of vyāpti underlies inference. F is correct because UGC NET may present examples and ask which type they exemplify. E is false since Nyaya explicitly uses anvaya and vyatireka to help support vyāpti. Therefore A, B, C, D and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits F, failing to mention the examination angle of identifying such inference types.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it omits C (anvayavyatireki), so it does not include all true statements.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes E, which denies the role of anvaya/vyatireka in supporting vyāpti.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it includes all true statements and excludes the false one (E).

Anvayavyatireki anumāna combines both positive and negative concomitance: we observe co-presence of smoke and fire in similar cases and co-absence of smoke where there is no fire. The smoke–fire relation is not restricted to only positive or only negative instances; we have both kitchens with smoke and fire and places like lakes where neither occurs. This pattern fits the definition of anvayavyatireki and is the classical example in Nyāya texts.

Option A:
Option A, kevalānvayi, involves only positive instances where the hetu occurs throughout a single homogeneous class, with no genuine negative instances.

Option B:
Option B, kevalavyatireki, works entirely through negative reasoning without positive cases, unlike the smoke–fire example.

Option C:
Option C aligns with the mixed pattern of co-presence and co-absence that Nyāya uses to illustrate robust vyāpti, making this the standard classification for the hill-fire inference.

Option D:
Option D refers to a fallacious hetu that is irregular, which does not apply to the textbook case of smoke as a reliable sign of fire.

Anvayavyatireki anumāna employs both positive and negative instances to establish vyāpti. For smoke and fire we observe places with smoke that have fire and places without fire that have no smoke. This dual pattern strengthens the connection and makes smoke a reliable sign of fire. The hill example is therefore the standard anvayavyatireki illustration in Nyāya logic.

Option A:
Option A matches the textbook case where both co presence and co absence of smoke and fire are used to ground the inference.

Option B:
Option B is the kevalānvayi example based only on positive knowable–nameable instances.

Option C:
Option C is a more abstract metaphysical case and is often discussed under kevalavyatireki rather than anvayavyatireki.

Option D:
Option D likewise belongs to a different pattern and is not the simple everyday example used to teach anvayavyatireki.