UGC NET Questions (Paper – 1)

A sound argument is defined as a valid argument with all true premises. Because of validity, the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Because the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true in reality. Thus the description in the stem corresponds exactly to the notion of a sound argument.

Option A:
Option A, strong, usually refers to inductive arguments in which the premises make the conclusion highly probable. Strength does not guarantee truth with necessity and need not involve validity. Therefore strong is not the correct technical term here.

Option B:
Option B correctly names a sound argument as one that is valid with true premises. Such arguments provide the highest level of logical assurance about their conclusions. Hence sound is the most appropriate choice for the situation described.

Option C:
Option C, cogent, also describes a good inductive argument with strong support and true premises. However, cogency belongs to inductive, not strictly valid deductive, reasoning. Thus cogent does not match the definition given in the stem.

Option D:
Option D, invalid, refers to an argument whose conclusion does not follow necessarily from its premises. In an invalid argument, true premises may still lead to a false conclusion. Therefore invalid is the opposite of what is described and cannot be correct.

The wrong statement is D only. A, B, C, E and F are correct. D is false because a true conclusion can be reached via an invalid (fallacious) argument. F is correct because validity is a matter of logical form (truth-preservation across possible cases), not the actual truth or falsity of the premises in the real world.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it identifies D alone as wrong and correctly treats F as a true description of validity being form-based. This matches standard textbook definitions used in UGC NET reasoning.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it marks F as wrong, but F correctly states that validity depends on form, not on the actual truth/falsity of premises. So “F only” cannot be right.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it wrongly includes C as a wrong statement, even though C is the standard definition of soundness (valid + true premises). It also includes F, which is correct.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes F among the wrong statements. Since F is correct, the set “D and F only” is not the right answer.

A valid argument is one whose logical form guarantees that if the premises are true, the conclusion must also be true. This condition rules out any counterexample with true premises and a false conclusion. Validity concerns the structure of the argument rather than the actual truth of its premises. Therefore the type of argument described in the stem is a valid argument.

Option A:
Option A is correct because validity is defined precisely by the impossibility of true premises leading to a false conclusion. Even if the premises are in fact false, a valid form ensures that no logically consistent counterexample violates this constraint. This matches the requirement given in the question.

Option B:
Option B, sound, is a stronger notion that requires an argument to be both valid and to have all true premises. The stem does not specify that the premises are actually true, only that if they were, the conclusion could not be false, so soundness goes beyond what is stated.

Option C:
Option C, weak, usually describes an inductive argument whose premises provide only limited support for the conclusion. It does not apply to deductive arguments with guaranteed truth preservation.

Option D:
Option D, cogent, refers to an inductive argument that is strong and has true premises, leading to a probably true conclusion. This concept belongs to inductive reasoning, not to the kind of deductive necessity mentioned in the stem.

A valid argument is one in which, if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true because of the logical structure. Validity concerns the form of the argument rather than the actual truth of the premises. In mathematical reasoning and proofs, ensuring validity guarantees that no incorrect conclusion is drawn from correct assumptions. Therefore, the phrase "conclusion necessarily follows from the premises" directly describes a valid argument.

Option A:
A sound argument is valid and also has all true premises, which is a stronger condition than mere validity. The question, however, focuses only on the logical relation between premises and conclusion, not on whether the premises are true. Because soundness includes an extra requirement not mentioned, this term does not exactly match the description. Hence, it is not the best answer.

Option B:
A strong argument is a term more often used in inductive reasoning to indicate that the premises provide substantial support for the conclusion, but not certainty. Strength suggests high probability, not logical necessity. Since the question emphasises that the conclusion necessarily follows, "strong" is not the correct technical term.

Option C:
A weak argument gives little support to its conclusion and often suffers from logical gaps or insufficient evidence. It certainly does not guarantee that the conclusion follows from the premises. Thus, it is almost the opposite of what the question describes. Consequently, this option is clearly incorrect.

Option D:
Valid is correct because validity captures exactly the idea that the logical form forces the conclusion to follow from the premises. It does not depend on content but on structure, which is crucial in mathematical proofs and reasoning. Recognising validity helps in evaluating arguments on exams and in solving theoretical problems.

Statements A, C, D and E correctly describe statement–conclusion reasoning. A is true because a conclusion must be a reasonable inference from what is stated. C is correct in that valid syllogistic conclusions follow necessarily from premises. D is true; sometimes more than one conclusion is logically supported. E is correct because unsupported personal opinions do not qualify as conclusions based on the statement. B is false since a conclusion that contradicts the given statement is generally weak or invalid. Thus A, C, D and E only are correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete as it omits E, failing to emphasise that conclusions must be grounded in the statement rather than personal views, an important exam guideline.

Option B:
Option B is incorrect because it includes B, which wrongly treats contradictions as strong conclusions, and so mixes one false statement with true ones.

Option C:
Option C is wrong since it leaves out A and includes only C, D and E, thereby omitting the foundational idea of what a conclusion is in statement–conclusion questions.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it gathers all accurate points about necessity, multiplicity and support of conclusions, while excluding B, which misrepresents strong conclusions.

Statements A, B, C, E and F correctly distinguish tautologies, contradictions and contingencies and relate them to argument validity, while D is false. A tautological conclusion is always true, so any argument with such a conclusion is at least logically valid, though possibly uninformative. Contradictory premises render an argument vacuously valid because there is no case where all premises are true, and recognising logical status helps in judging equivalence and validity in exams. D is wrong because it asserts the opposite about tautological conclusions. Therefore A, B, C, E and F only is the correct combination.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E and F, leaving out the role of contradictory premises and the exam-related significance of these distinctions. Although A, B and C are true definitions, they do not connect to argument validity. Thus this option is not complete.

Option B:
Option B is also incomplete, adding E but still omitting F, which summarises the practical usefulness of these categories in UGC NET. Without F, the option lacks an explicit link to reasoning tasks. Hence it cannot be the best answer.

Option C:
Option C is correct since it combines the basic definitions with a key fact about arguments from contradictions and the exam relevance of recognising logical status. It excludes D, which mischaracterises arguments with tautological conclusions. This makes the option logically consistent.

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes D, thereby accepting the false view that tautological conclusions always make arguments invalid, and it omits A, the central definition of tautology. This combination cannot be taken as correct.

All five statements A through E are correct descriptions of standard logical classifications and their exam use. Tautologies are true under all assignments, contradictions are always false, and contingencies vary with the assignment. A statement and its negation cannot both be tautologies because their truth-values must differ somewhere. Recognising tautological patterns is useful in UGC NET for spotting valid argument forms.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits E, missing the applied exam-use point.

Option B:
Option B is correct since it includes every true statement (A–E).

Option C:
Option C is wrong because it omits C (definition of contingency).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it omits A (definition of tautology).

A and B are correct definitions. C is false because valid arguments can have false premises. D is false because a true conclusion can come from invalid reasoning. E is false because a sound argument’s conclusion must be true. Thus only A and B are correct.

Option A:
Option A is incomplete because it omits B (soundness definition).

Option B:
Option B is correct because it includes exactly the two true statements.

Option C:
Option C is incorrect because it includes C (false).

Option D:
Option D is incorrect because it includes C and D (both false) and omits A.

Statements A, B and C describe the standard logical notions of validity and soundness in deductive reasoning, so they are all true together. In a valid deductive argument, true premises guarantee a true conclusion, and validity is a matter of form rather than factual correctness of premises. A sound argument must be both valid and have all true premises, which is exactly what C states. Statements D and E are false, because deductive conclusions do not always go beyond the information in the premises, and an argument can be valid yet unsound if its premises are false. Therefore the combination containing A, B and C only is correct.

Option A:
Option A includes A and B, which are both true, but it omits C, which correctly defines a sound argument as valid with true premises. Because C is also true and is left out, this option does not capture all the correct statements and is therefore incomplete.

Option B:
Option B selects B and C but leaves out A, so it fails to mention the fundamental guarantee that in a valid deductive argument true premises ensure a true conclusion. Since A is a correct statement about validity and is missing, this combination cannot be considered fully correct.

Option C:
Option C includes A, B and C but adds D, which is false because deductive reasoning need not extend beyond the information in the premises; often the conclusion is logically contained in them. Including D alongside the true statements makes the overall set incorrect.

Option D:
Option D is correct because it lists exactly those statements that are true: A about the truth-preserving nature of validity, B about structure, and C about soundness. It excludes D and E, which misrepresent deductive reasoning by suggesting that every valid argument is automatically sound and that conclusions must always go beyond the premises.