UGCNET Questions

Communication in classrooms does not occur in isolated moments; it unfolds over time through lectures, questions, discussions and feedback. It is social because it involves people influencing and being influenced by each other’s meanings, emotions and expectations. The goal is not only to send information but to build shared understanding around concepts and practices.

Option A:
Option A is correct because it emphasises continuity, social interaction and mutual understanding. It reflects the view that teachers and students co-construct meaning rather than acting as separate sender and passive receivers.

Option B:
Option B limits communication to examinations, ignoring regular teaching–learning interactions that are central to education. Exams check learning but are not the only communicative events.

Option C:
Option C portrays communication as purely mechanical, neglecting interpretation, emotions and culture. Educational communication always involves human meaning-making.

Option D:
Option D wrongly suggests that only the teacher thinks. Students constantly interpret, question and assign meaning to messages, even when they are silent.

Interactive whiteboards allow teachers to draw, highlight and display images while simultaneously speaking. This engages both the auditory and visual channels of learners. Such multimodal input can improve comprehension, support different learning styles and help students retain complex information more effectively.

Option A:
Option A suggests exclusively verbal communication, but the use of diagrams and annotations clearly adds a visual component.

Option B:
Option B is correct because interactive whiteboards combine spoken explanations with visual representations, creating multimodal communication.

Option C:
Option C refers to purely written communication with no oral component, which does not describe a teacher explaining aloud while annotating diagrams.

Option D:
Option D focuses only on gestures, whereas interactive whiteboards mainly add visual media (text, diagrams, images) along with speech.

Experimental research aims to establish cause effect relationships by deliberately changing one variable and observing its effect on another. The researcher manipulates the independent variable while controlling or holding constant other variables that could influence the outcome. This control allows more confident inferences about causality. Thus, manipulation and control are central to experimental design.

Option A:
Option A involves secondary data analysis, which can be part of non experimental or correlational studies but does not by itself define experimentation.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies the two core requirements: manipulation of an independent variable and control of extraneous factors. Without these, it is difficult to attribute observed changes in the dependent variable to the experimental treatment. Therefore, this feature is essential.

Option C:
Option C describes descriptive research, which observes and records phenomena without intervention. It does not satisfy the requirements of experimental design.

Option D:
Option D refers to large sample selection, which may be useful but is neither necessary nor sufficient for an experiment. Many experiments use relatively small samples yet retain strong internal validity.

Ethical research requires honesty in collecting, analyzing and reporting data regardless of whether results are favorable or expected. Unexpected or null findings still contribute to knowledge by challenging assumptions and guiding future inquiries, so they should be reported transparently with discussion of limitations and implications.

Option A:
This option advocates altering data, which is fabrication or falsification and a serious form of scientific misconduct that undermines trust in research.

Option B:
Suppressing unfavourable or null results contributes to publication bias and distorts the evidence base; it is unethical because it hides information that may be important for future studies or policy.

Option C:
This option is correct because it reflects scientific integrity: the researcher reports the actual findings, explores plausible reasons for the discrepancy with expectations, notes limitations and suggests how future work could build on these results.

Option D:
Rewriting the hypothesis after seeing the results without disclosure (HARKing) is misleading. It creates the false impression that the study was designed to test the observed pattern from the outset, which violates honest reporting standards.

Vyāpti is the logical glue of inference because it states that wherever the hetu occurs under relevant conditions, the sādhya also occurs. It is established by observing many positive and negative instances until a stable pattern is recognised. This invariable concomitance justifies moving from the presence of the hetu in a new case to the presence of the sādhya. Without vyāpti, inference would be guesswork rather than a pramāṇa.

Option A:
Option A reduces vyāpti to a single coincidence, which could be accidental and cannot ground a reliable inferential rule. Vyāpti demands a general regularity, not one case.

Option B:
Option B correctly defines vyāpti as the invariable hetu–sādhya relation across relevant cases, which is exactly what supports sound inference.

Option C:
Option C confuses vyāpti with the subject’s mental confidence; psychological certainty may arise even when there is no objective invariable relation between hetu and sādhya.

Option D:
Option D refers to merely restating the thesis, which adds no new information about the connection between hetu and sādhya and therefore cannot constitute vyāpti.

For Nyāya, sapakṣa denotes those instances where the probandum (sādhya) is known to be present, such as other fiery places when proving “the hill is fiery.” Vipakṣa denotes instances where the sādhya is known to be absent, like a lake where fire is absent. Examining whether the hetu occurs in sapakṣa and is absent in vipakṣa helps establish vyāpti. Thus, the distinction is drawn using the presence or absence of the sādhya, not of the hetu.

Option A:
Option A reverses the intuitive description and treats sapakṣa as dissimilar and vipakṣa as similar, which is not how these terms are technically defined.

Option B:
Option B correctly states that sapakṣa are sādhya positive cases and vipakṣa are sādhya negative cases, the very basis for testing the reliability of the hetu.

Option C:
Option C misclassifies the sets in terms of the hetu and also reverses presence and absence; Nyāya’s formal definitions do not use this pattern.

Option D:
Option D introduces a different distinction based on scriptural versus empirical examples, which is not built into the technical meaning of sapakṣa and vipakṣa.

One of the core communication skills of an effective teacher is the ability to translate complex ideas into forms that students can grasp. This involves using simple, precise language and organizing explanations logically. Incorporating familiar examples, analogies and visual illustrations helps link new information to prior knowledge. Such strategies are essential in heterogeneous classrooms where learners differ in background and ability.

Option A:
Option A overemphasizes technical vocabulary, which, if used without scaffolding, can alienate or confuse many students. While subject terminology is important, it must be introduced gradually and explained clearly.

Option B:
Option B correctly highlights simplification, clarity and use of examples as key elements of explanatory skill. These strategies allow students with different preparation levels to construct understanding at their own pace and are repeatedly emphasized in teacher training.

Option C:
Option C suggests speaking very quickly to cover the syllabus, but high speed often reduces comprehension and leaves little time for reflection or note making.

Option D:
Option D proposes avoiding questions to preserve lecture flow, which blocks feedback and prevents the teacher from noticing and addressing student difficulties.

For a conditional statement p → q, the contrapositive ¬q → ¬p is logically equivalent to the original. Here p is “the number is divisible by 4” and q is “the number is even.” The contrapositive is “if a number is not even, then it is not divisible by 4.” Both the original statement and its contrapositive are true or false together in all possible cases, so they are logically equivalent.

Option A:
Option A reverses the direction of the implication to q → p, which is the converse. The truth of the original statement does not guarantee the truth of its converse; being even does not ensure divisibility by 4.

Option B:
Option B states “If a number is not divisible by 4, then it is not even,” which is the inverse. The inverse is not logically equivalent to the original because many numbers are not divisible by 4 but are still even.

Option C:
Option C correctly expresses the contrapositive ¬q → ¬p: if a number is not even, then it is not divisible by 4. This preserves the logical content of the original implication and is therefore equivalent to it.

Option D:
Option D, “If a number is not divisible by 4, then it is even,” contradicts the original pattern and misstates the relationship between being even and being divisible by 4.

Distance is calculated using the formula Distance = Speed × Time. The given speed is 60 km/h, but the time is 30 minutes, which is half an hour or 0.5 hours. Substituting into the formula gives Distance = 60 × 0.5 = 30 km. Hence, the train covers 30 kilometres in 30 minutes at this speed.

Option A:
Option A, 20 km, would correspond to a speed of 40 km/h for 30 minutes, not the given 60 km/h. It reflects a misalignment between speed and time.

Option B:
Option B, 25 km, does not correspond to any simple fraction of 60 using half an hour and indicates an incorrect multiplication or conversion.

Option C:
Option C, 40 km, would be the distance travelled in 40 minutes at 60 km/h, or in 2/3 of an hour, not in 30 minutes. Thus, it overestimates the distance for the time given.

Option D:
Option D correctly uses 0.5 hours as the time and multiplies by 60 km/h to get 30 km. This matches both the formula and the unit conversion from minutes to hours.

In Nyāya, pakṣa is the subject or locus about which something is to be proved. In the classic example “The hill is fiery because it has smoke,” the hill is the entity whose possession of fire is being established. Smoke functions as the hetu or middle term, and fire is the sādhya or probandum. Thus, the hill is the pakṣa in which the sādhya is to be demonstrated on the strength of the hetu.

Option A:
Option A names the sādhya, the property to be proved (fire), not the locus that is being reasoned about.

Option B:
Option B gives the hetu, the reason or sign (smoke) that serves as the evidence, which is distinct from the subject of inference.

Option C:
Option C is typically used as a dṛṣṭānta in the classical example, a well-known instance where smoke and fire co-occur, but it is not the pakṣa in this inference.

Option D:
Option D correctly identifies the hill as the subject whose fiery nature is being inferred, making it the pakṣa in Nyāya terminology.

Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā expands the list of pramāṇas beyond Nyāya’s four by adding arthāpatti (postulation) and anupalabdhi (non perception as a means to know absence). These two are treated as independent because they are thought to provide knowledge not reducible to perception, inference, comparison or testimony.

Option A:
Option A includes upamāna and śabda, which Nyāya already recognises; they are not additional in Mīmāṃsā relative to Nyāya.

Option B:
Option B correctly identifies arthāpatti and anupalabdhi as the characteristic additions that lead to a six pramāṇa scheme in Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā.

Option C:
Option C mentions memory and imagination, which are psychological functions rather than distinct pramāṇas in standard classifications.

Option D:
Option D highlights yogic and dream perceptions, which may be treated as special modes of perception but are not the canonical “extra” pramāṇas in Bhāṭṭa Mīmāṃsā.

When a user visits a website, the browser may save images, scripts and other components in a local cache. On subsequent visits, it can load these elements from the cache instead of downloading them again, reducing bandwidth use and improving loading times. This caching mechanism is a standard ICT technique for optimising user experience on the web.

Option A:
This option correctly describes how caching works: the browser keeps temporary copies of page elements so that later visits are faster and require fewer network requests. This improves performance and reduces bandwidth consumption.

Option B:
This option incorrectly suggests that a browser cache can permanently delete all websites from the Internet. A cache only stores local copies; it has no control over whether sites exist on remote servers.

Option C:
Associating the cache with hardware circuit design confuses software-level optimisation with physical network engineering. Router circuits are designed by engineers, not by browser caching mechanisms.

Option D:
Caching does not prevent pages from being reloaded; it simply affects where elements are loaded from. Users can always refresh pages, and servers can force new downloads when content changes.

Effective communication requires clarity of expression and sensitivity to the audience. When a teacher uses language that students can understand and supports explanations with familiar examples, the message becomes more accessible. Checking understanding through questions or feedback helps ensure that students have correctly interpreted the ideas. This combination leads to better comprehension and interaction.

Option A:
This option emphasises speed over clarity. Speaking very fast can overload students and reduce their ability to process information, even if more content is technically covered. It therefore does not demonstrate effective communication.

Option B:
This option is correct because it integrates verbal clarity with examples and feedback, which are central to good classroom communication. It shows that communication is not a one-way act but a process involving encoding, decoding and verification of meaning. Such behaviour reflects high teaching aptitude.

Option C:
This option involves heavy use of technical jargon, which can alienate students who lack the necessary background. Without explanation, jargon acts as a barrier to understanding rather than a facilitator.

Option D:
This option eliminates opportunities for students to ask questions, which prevents clarification of doubts. Communication remains incomplete when feedback from the receiver is ignored.

Modern views of evaluation emphasise its formative role in supporting learning. Assessment results can inform teachers about the effectiveness of methods and identify areas where students struggle. They also guide students about their strengths and weaknesses. When used in this way, evaluation becomes an integral part of the teaching learning process rather than just a sorting mechanism.

Option A:
This option reflects a narrow summative use of evaluation for ranking and labelling. While some ranking may be necessary, using it only for this purpose can demotivate students and does not help in improving teaching practices.

Option B:
This option is correct because it explicitly states that evaluation should generate feedback for improvement. It recognises that both teacher and students are learners who can adjust strategies based on evidence. Such reflective use of evaluation aligns with quality assurance and continuous improvement principles.

Option C:
This option suggests a single end of course test, which gives little opportunity for midcourse corrections. Without ongoing evaluation, problems in learning may remain unnoticed until it is too late to address them.

Option D:
This option reduces evaluation to factual recall, ignoring understanding, application and higher order thinking. Such limited focus cannot capture the full range of learning outcomes expected in higher education.

A hypothesis expresses a researcher’s expectation about how two or more variables are related in the population. It is tentative because it may be supported or rejected after empirical testing. It is testable because it is stated in terms of observable variables that can be measured. By predicting direction or type of relationship, it guides the choice of design and statistical analysis.

Option A:
Option A is correct as it captures both tentative and testable nature and mentions prediction of relationships.

Option B:
Option B incorrectly treats the hypothesis as a final conclusion, whereas conclusions are drawn only after hypotheses are tested with data.

Option C:
Option C calls it a vague idea, but a proper hypothesis must be precise and operational, otherwise it cannot be tested scientifically.

Option D:
Option D confuses hypothesis with sampling details, which belong to the methodology section, not to conceptual predictions about variables.