UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

Statements A, B, D, E and F are correct, whereas C is false. Universal instantiation and existential generalisation describe safe moves from general to particular and from particular to existential claims. Misusing these rules by upgrading “some” to “all” is a recognised error, and exam questions often test which conclusion correctly follows using quantifiers. The relationship between “Not all S are P” and “Some S are not P” illustrates how negation interplays with universal and existential force. Statement C is wrong because moving from “Some S are P” to “All S are P” overstates the information given. Hence A, B, D, E and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is correct since it brings together the valid descriptions of the rules, the warning about misuse and the way quantifiers appear in UGC NET questions. It leaves out C, which treats a classic fallacy as if it were a valid rule. This combination therefore matches introductory predicate-logic guidance used in exams.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes C, thereby treating the invalid step from “some” to “all” as legitimate existential generalisation. That move has no logical justification and overgeneralises from limited information. Including C makes the whole option unsound.

Option C:
Option C is wrong as it omits A and adds C and F to B, D and E. Without A, the role of universal instantiation is not stated, and including C again endorses an invalid inference. Thus the set does not correctly represent the true statements.

Option D:
Option D is incomplete since it omits F, ignoring the important pattern relating “Not all” to an existential negative. While A, B, D and E are true, leaving out this quantifier-negation equivalence means the option does not capture all correct information.