UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, C, D and F are correct, while B and E are incorrect. Shading a region represents that it is empty, so “A and not B” shaded means there is no A outside B. An X marks the presence of at least one element, and three-circle diagrams handle arguments with up to three terms. When both premises are entered on the same diagram, it becomes clear whether the conclusion goes beyond the information given. B is wrong because shading does not indicate existence, and E is wrong because premises are not diagrammed separately when testing a syllogism. Thus A, C, D and F only is the correct set.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits F and therefore fails to mention the diagnostic role of Venn diagrams in spotting over-extended conclusions. Although A, C and D are correct, they do not cover the use of diagrams in checking whether conclusions follow. Hence A, C and D only cannot be accepted.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes E, which falsely states that each premise should be diagrammed separately. Proper practice is to combine the premises on a single diagram to see their joint implications. Including E makes the overall combination inconsistent with the standard method.

Option C:
Option C is wrong as it leaves out A and adds F to C and D only. While C, D and F are true, excluding A overlooks the meaning of shaded regions, an essential part of diagram interpretation. Therefore C, D and F only does not capture all the correct statements.

Option D:
Option D is correct since it brings together A, C, D and F, summarising both the representational rules and the inferential use of Venn diagrams. It rightly excludes B, which confuses shading with existence, and E, which misdescribes the testing procedure. This makes Option D the accurate answer.

A particular affirmative proposition is expressed in the form “Some S are P”. It makes an existential claim that there exists at least one member of the subject class that belongs to the predicate class. In traditional logic it is labelled I-type, reflecting its particular quantity and affirmative quality. Therefore the statement described in the stem is a particular affirmative proposition.

Option A:
Option A, universal affirmative, asserts that all members of the subject class are included in the predicate class. This is far stronger than the minimal claim that at least one such member exists, so it does not match the description.

Option B:
Option B, universal negative, denies that any S are P and thus contradicts the assertion that some S are P. It clearly cannot be the correct classification.

Option C:
Option C is correct because particular affirmative precisely relates to propositions that affirm the predicate of at least one subject. This form plays an important role in discussions of existential import and the square of opposition.

Option D:
Option D, particular negative, states that some S are not P, which is negative in quality and therefore different from the affirmative assertion in the stem.

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 E correctly summarise the traditional and modern views of the square of opposition, while F is false. The traditional square treats A and E as contraries and I and O as subcontraries, and maintains that contradictory pairs cannot both be true or both be false. Modern logic largely drops contrariety and subcontrariety due to the rejection of existential import, but it keeps the contradictory relations intact. F is wrong because subalternation from universal to particular does not automatically hold under the modern, non-existential reading. Therefore A, B, C, D and E only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it includes all the true statements and excludes only F, which misstates the scope of subalternation in modern logic. It captures both the traditional structure and the modifications introduced by the Boolean interpretation. This makes it the only option that fully matches accepted logical theory.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E, which correctly notes that contradictory relations remain valid in both interpretations. Without E, the description of what survives in the modern view is incomplete. Hence A, B, C and D only does not represent the full set of correct statements.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes F along with B, C, D and E. Including F treats subalternation as always valid in modern logic, which is not the case when universals are not assumed to have existential import. This error makes the combination inconsistent with standard textbook accounts.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it leaves out B and E and wrongly includes F. B is needed to characterise subcontraries, and E is needed to show what survives in the modern view. With these omissions and the inclusion of F, A, C, D and F only cannot be accepted as the correct set.

Statements A, B, C and D correctly describe the relations of contrariety and subcontrariety in the traditional square, and F is true about exam usage. E is false because modern logic’s treatment of universal propositions without assumed existential import undermines some of the classical relationships. Thus the correct set of true statements is A, B, C, D and F only.

Option A:
Option A is correct since it includes all the accurate relational claims plus the observation that UGC NET may still use the traditional framework. It excludes E, which overstates the continuity between traditional and modern logic. This makes the option consistent with both history and syllabus.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete, as it omits F and therefore does not mention the exam context. While A, B, C and D are true, the option fails to cover all the correct statements listed.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it includes E, which incorrectly claims that all traditional relations survive in modern treatment unchanged. This conflicts with standard modern logic texts, so the combination cannot be accepted.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it leaves out B, omitting the key general statement about contraries, and thus does not contain all true statements. Consequently, it does not represent the full correct set.