UGCNET Questions

Deductive reasoning proceeds from the general to the specific. In research, it usually starts with an existing theory or general principle and then derives specific hypotheses that can be tested empirically, allowing researchers to check whether observations support or contradict theoretical expectations.

Option A:
This option correctly describes deduction as starting with a general theoretical framework and narrowing down to specific statements about what should be observed. It reflects the classic sequence used in many quantitative studies.

Option B:
This option illustrates inductive reasoning, where patterns and theories emerge from specific observations; the researcher builds generalizations after examining particular classroom situations.

Option C:
Option C is another example of induction. Generating categories from interview transcripts without prior assumptions involves moving from detailed qualitative data to broader concepts or themes.

Option D:
Option D also reflects an inductive, exploratory approach in which the researcher enters the field without a guiding theory and allows patterns to emerge from the data, rather than deriving specifics from a prior general principle.

A correct deductive pattern guarantees the truth of the conclusion whenever the premises are true. The form “If it rains, the ground gets wet; it is raining; therefore the ground will get wet” is a classic example of modus ponens. Here the condition and its antecedent are both asserted, making the consequent logically necessary. There is no gap between the premises and the conclusion in such a structure.

Option A:
Option A has the structure “If P then Q; P; therefore Q,” which is modus ponens, a standard valid deductive form where the conclusion necessarily follows if the premises are true.

Option B:
Option B, “The ground is wet, so it must have rained,” affirms the consequent and concludes the antecedent. This is the fallacy of affirming the consequent, because wet ground can have other causes.

Option C:
Option C makes a prediction based on temporal repetition, which is inductive rather than deductive.

Option D:
Option D treats a cloudy sky as a sufficient condition for rain, which is not logically guaranteed and again represents an inductive guess, not a valid deduction.

A deductive argument is one in which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true. In the metals example, the general premise covers all metals, and the second premise identifies copper as a member of that class. The conclusion about copper’s conductivity follows necessarily from these two claims. There is no room for the conclusion to be false if both premises hold, which is the hallmark of deductive reasoning.

Option A:
Option A uses a classic syllogistic structure: a universal generalisation plus a specific instance leading to a necessity claim. This structure guarantees the conclusion whenever the premises are accepted as true.

Option B:
Option B is inductive because it generalises from sample data to a broader population with only probable support.

Option C:
Option C is a weak inductive prediction based on a single previous observation and does not claim necessity.

Option D:
Option D overgeneralises from one case and therefore is inductive and also fallacious, not deductive.