UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Viruddha hetu is one whose presence implies the negation of the sadhya rather than its affirmation. Instead of supporting the intended conclusion, it logically entails the contrary. Using such a reason undermines the very claim one seeks to establish. Therefore the fallacy described in the stem is viruddha hetvabhasa.

Option A:
Option A is correct because viruddha means “opposed” and aptly labels a reason opposed to the conclusion it is supposed to prove. It highlights a deep inconsistency in the argument.

Option B:
Option B, savyabhicara, denotes a reason that is irregularly related to the sadhya and does not consistently support it, which is different from actively proving the opposite.

Option C:
Option C, asiddha, targets cases where the reason is not established in the paksha and may be non-existent or doubtful there.

Option D:
Option D, satpratipaksha, concerns reasons that are counterbalanced by equally strong reasons for the opposite conclusion, not a single reason that itself implies the contrary.

Statements A, B, C, E and F are correct, while D is incorrect. Pakṣa is indeed the subject where the probandum is to be shown, and vyāpti states the invariable relation between hetu and sādhya. Sapakṣa are positive instances with both reason and probandum, and a proper hetu must appear in all such cases and in none of the negative instances, vipakṣa. If hetu appears in vipakṣa, its exclusiveness is broken, making the reason fallacious. Statement D is wrong because vipakṣa are cases where the sādhya is absent and, for a proper hetu, the reason should also be absent there.

Option A:
Option A is incorrect because it omits F, thereby ignoring the important consequence that hetu’s presence in vipakṣa leads to a fallacy. While A, B, C and E describe key concepts, they do not mention what happens when the exclusiveness condition is violated. Thus A, B, C and E only cannot be the full set of correct statements.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it combines A, B, C, E and F, reflecting the standard Nyaya account of pakṣa, vyāpti, sapakṣa, vipakṣa and the condition of a proper hetu. It excludes D, which wrongly describes vipakṣa as places where hetu is present but sādhya is absent. The option therefore matches the real structure of Indian inference theory.

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it accepts D along with the other statements. By treating D as correct, it suggests that hetu is present in vipakṣa, which is the very situation that undermines the validity of the reason. Including D therefore makes this option inconsistent with the conditions for a proper hetu.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect since it drops B, a central explanation of vyāpti, and keeps A, C, E and F only. Without acknowledging vyāpti explicitly, the picture of inference is incomplete, and the presence of D’s error in other options confirms that this reduced set does not accurately represent all true statements.

Badhita hetu is one where the supposed universal connection between hetu and sadhya is refuted by more powerful means of knowledge. For example, an inference that fire is cold based on some spurious reason is contradicted by direct perceptual experience of fire's heat. In such cases, the hetu cannot be accepted as valid. Hence the fallacy described in the stem is badhita.

Option A:
Option A, savyabhicara, centres on irregular occurrence of the hetu with and without the sadhya, not on contradiction by other pramanas.

Option B:
Option B, satpratipaksha, involves competing reasons of equal strength on both sides of an issue, whereas badhita features clear overruling by a stronger source.

Option C:
Option C is correct because badhita means “defeated” or “overruled,” indicating that the alleged reason is nullified by superior evidence.

Option D:
Option D, asiddha, addresses the absence or non-establishment of the hetu in the paksha, which is a different flaw.

Hetvabhasa literally means “that which looks like a hetu” but is not genuinely connected to the sadhya by vyapti. Such a reason may resemble a valid hetu in form yet lacks the necessary conditions for successful inference. Recognising hetvabhasas helps one detect fallacies in argumentation. Therefore the deceptive reason described in the stem is called hetvabhasa.

Option A:
Option A, vyapti, is the genuine universal concomitance between hetu and sadhya and is a mark of validity, not fallacy.

Option B:
Option B, drstanta, is the illustrative example used to show the connection between hetu and sadhya; it may support or reveal a fallacy but is not itself the erroneous reason described.

Option C:
Option C is correct because hetvabhasa covers the standard categories of faulty reasons such as savyabhicara, viruddha and asiddha. Each instance looks like a reason but fails on closer analysis.

Option D:
Option D, paksha, is the subject of inference and cannot be equated with the defective reason used within the argument.

Asiddha hetu fails because the alleged reason does not exist or is not known to exist in the paksha. Since the foundational fact is missing, no valid inference can proceed from it. Nyaya lists several subtypes depending on why the hetu is unestablished. Thus the defective reason described in the stem is asiddha.

Option A:
Option A, viruddha, focuses on reasons that prove the opposite conclusion, not on absence of the reason in the subject.

Option B:
Option B is correct because asiddha literally means “unaccomplished” or “unproved” and captures the idea that the reason has not been successfully shown in the very locus where it is needed.

Option C:
Option C, badhita, involves reasons whose supposed vyapti is contradicted by stronger evidence, even if they are present in the paksha.

Option D:
Option D, nirvikalpa, describes a kind of indeterminate perception and is not a classification of hetu at all.

Statements A, B, D and E correctly characterise asiddha hetu as a middle term that is not properly established, either because it does not qualify the pakṣa or is itself impossible, and note its place in UGC NET questions. C is false because a hetu present in the pakṣa but absent in all sapakṣa cases is rather an example of asādhāraṇa or improperly restricted reason, not simply asiddha. Thus the true statements are A, B, D and E only.

Option A:
Option A is correct since it includes all the accurate descriptions and the exam-related remark, while excluding C which mislabels a different defect as asiddha. It reflects the standard Nyaya classification of hetvābhāsa.

Option B:
Option B is incomplete because it omits E, failing to mention that UGC NET often provides examples of such fallacious reasons in the options. Without E, the exam application of the concept is missing.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect as it drops A, losing the basic idea that asiddha hetu is unestablished in the pakṣa, and it also keeps an incomplete/incorrect mix. So it does not include all true statements.

Option D:
Option D is wrong because it keeps C (false) and omits B (true), so it cannot be the correct combination.

Savyabhicāra hetu, also known as the irregular or inconsistent middle, fails to establish a conclusion because it appears in instances where the probandum is present and in other instances where it is absent. Since vyāpti demands an invariable relation, such a middle term cannot serve as a reliable indicator. The presence of counterexamples undermines the inferential connection, making the hetu fallacious.

Option A:
Option A describes a hetu that is simply absent in the pakṣa, which is a different kind of defect related to asiddha or unproved middle.

Option B:
Option B describes a proper hetu with correct vyāpti; if the reason is always accompanied by the sādhya, it is sound, not irregular.

Option C:
Option C correctly captures the irregularity of the middle term that appears in both sādhya-possessing and sādhya-lacking cases, destroying the necessary invariance for valid inference.

Option D:
Option D introduces scriptural testimony, which relates to the source of the reason, not to the pattern of its occurrence across instances.

Satpratipaksha arises when an argument's reason is neutralised by another reason of comparable strength that supports the opposite conclusion. In such a situation, neither side can claim decisive inferential support. Nyaya treats this as a defect in the original hetu because it fails to yield a clear, uncontested conclusion. Thus the fallacy in the stem is satpratipaksha hetvabhasa.

Option A:
Option A, asiddha, refers to an unestablished reason that may not exist in the paksha at all, rather than to a reason that is countered by another.

Option B:
Option B, badhita, involves being overridden by a stronger pramana, not merely an equally strong opposing reason.

Option C:
Option C, savyabhicara, points to irregularity of occurrence and does not require the presence of an explicit competing hetu.

Option D:
Option D is correct because satpratipaksha literally means “having a true counter-argument” and precisely captures a situation of equally balanced opposing reasons.