UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Analogical reasoning draws a conclusion about one case by comparing it with another similar case. It emphasises shared relevant features to support the inference. The strength of the argument depends on the number and importance of these similarities. Therefore reasoning that relies on similarity between situations is aptly called analogical reasoning.

Option A:
Option A, deductive, does not primarily involve comparison of cases but derives conclusions from general premises. Deduction seeks necessary truth rather than similarity-based support. Thus deductive is not the label for similarity-based reasoning.

Option B:
Option B, causal, focuses on identifying cause–effect relations and may or may not involve comparison. While analogies can illustrate causal claims, causal reasoning is conceptually distinct. Hence causal is not the best description of the reasoning in the stem.

Option C:
Option C names analogical reasoning, which explicitly uses similarity between cases to justify a conclusion. It is common in legal reasoning, everyday arguments and scientific modelling. This makes analogical the correct answer here.

Option D:
Option D, mathematical, refers to reasoning with numbers, symbols and formal structures. Mathematical proofs are usually deductive rather than similarity-based. Therefore mathematical reasoning does not capture the comparative nature described in the question.

Words like “therefore,” “thus,” and “so” are common conclusion indicators in natural language. They signal that what follows is being presented as a result of previously stated reasons. When a speaker uses “therefore,” they mark a transition from premises to the conclusion that those premises are intended to support. Recognising such markers helps in identifying argument structure.

Option A:
Option A, “because,” typically introduces a reason or premise, not the conclusion; it explains why something is the case.

Option B:
Option B, “since,” also generally functions as a premise indicator by giving background or justification.

Option C:
Option C, “therefore,” is used to announce what is being inferred, making it a standard conclusion indicator in many argument analyses.

Option D:
Option D, “given that,” again introduces assumptions or premises rather than signalling the final claim.

An argument presents a claim along with supporting reasons. In the second statement, the claim “exam stress is harmful” is followed by the word “because” and two reasons: it reduces concentration and sleep quality. This combination of a conclusion with explicit supporting premises forms an argument. The other statements either express a bare opinion or an exclamation without justification.

Option A:
Option A is only a bare assertion of harm with no reasons; it may be true, but it is not structured as an argument.

Option B:
Option B clearly provides reasons after “because,” which are offered as support for the main claim, satisfying the definition of an argument.

Option C:
Option C is an emotive expression about how stress feels, lacking any explicit rationale to persuade.

Option D:
Option D is an incomplete remark about stress reappearing, again not giving reasons or establishing a conclusion from premises.

In an argument, the conclusion is the main claim that the author wants the reader to accept on the basis of supporting reasons. Here, the factual observation about students who attend regularly and score high functions as the evidence. From this observation, the writer infers a general statement about the role of regular attendance in academic success. That generalised statement is what the premises are intended to support, so it is the conclusion.

Option A:
Option A presents the general claim that is being supported by the preceding observation, not the observation itself. It captures the “therefore” part of the reasoning and summarises the main point the argument is trying to establish.

Option B:
Option B reports the empirical basis of the argument and therefore functions as a premise, not the final point to be proved.

Option C:
Option C adds the stronger claim that success always requires attendance, which goes beyond the stated conclusion and is not actually asserted.

Option D:
Option D introduces a claim about marks being the only sign of success, which is not mentioned in the argument and cannot be its conclusion.