UGCNET Questions

The flipped classroom model uses ICT to deliver foundational content through videos or readings that students access before class. Classroom time is then freed for deeper engagement through activities such as problem-solving, case analysis and collaborative projects. This approach shifts the focus from passive reception to active learning. Thus, the activity described in this option accurately reflects what happens during class in a flipped setting.

Option A:
This option reverses the flipped concept by having students watch lectures only in class with a passive teacher. It does not leverage pre-class online resources or transform classroom interaction. Consequently, it resembles a traditional multimedia lecture rather than a flipped classroom.

Option B:
This option correctly identifies that higher-order learning tasks are prioritised during classroom sessions in a flipped model. Since basic explanations are handled by pre-class materials, valuable face-to-face time can be used for clarification, application and critical thinking. This is a key pedagogical rationale behind the flipped approach.

Option C:
Traditional one-way lectures keep students in a passive role and do not utilise ICT to redistribute learning activities across time and space. While they may involve some technologies, they do not embody the flipped philosophy.

Option D:
Taking attendance alone does not constitute meaningful learning. A flipped classroom emphasises engagement and interaction, not minimal administrative tasks. Therefore, this option is inappropriate.

Digital communication represents information in discrete binary form, which allows receivers and repeaters to distinguish valid bits even when some noise is present. Regenerators can restore digital signals to near-original shape at intermediate points. This leads to lower error rates and better quality over long distances, so Option A correctly states a major advantage.

Option A:
This option is incorrect because digital communication is actually the one closely associated with computers and ICT systems. Digital networks form the backbone of computer communication, so saying they can never be connected contradicts reality.

Option B:
Option C is wrong because digital signals are precisely what most modern electronic devices store and process. Memory chips, disks and processors all handle digital data.

Option C:
Option D about handwriting misunderstands the nature of digital communication, which uses electronic signals, not pen and paper.

Option D:

Vyāpti is the backbone of inference because it guarantees that wherever the hetu is present under relevant conditions, the sādhya is also present. It is not just a chance association in one example but an invariable relation established through observation of sapakṣa and vipakṣa cases and often supported by tarka. When smoke is known to be invariably associated with fire, we can reliably infer fire from smoke. Thus, vyāpti expresses a law like regularity between middle and major terms.

Option A:
Option A is too weak; a single example cannot establish invariable concomitance and may be accidental. Vyāpti requires a stable pattern across many appropriate instances.

Option B:
Option B describes a psychological state of certainty, which may or may not be justified; vyāpti is an objective relation, not merely a feeling in the reasoner’s mind.

Option C:
Option C correctly defines vyāpti as the invariable concomitance of hetu and sādhya across suitable cases, which is exactly what supports sound inference.

Option D:
Option D reduces vyāpti to a mere verbal assertion of the thesis; simply stating a claim does not amount to establishing the necessary connection between reason and probandum.

The statement “Some students are diligent” is an existential claim asserting that at least one member of the class of students has the property of being diligent. Its contradictory is “No student is diligent.” Therefore, if “some students are diligent” is true, then the statement “no student is diligent” must be false. Saying “It is not the case that no student is diligent” is logically equivalent to affirming that at least one diligent student exists.

Option A:
Option A is stronger than “some”; it claims that all students are diligent, which need not follow from the existence of at least one diligent student.

Option B:
Option B is the direct negation of the original statement and cannot be true if “some students are diligent” is true.

Option C:
Option C correctly denies the universal negative and is consistent with the existential affirmation about diligent students.

Option D:
Option D narrows the claim to exactly one student, which again is stronger than “some” and does not logically follow.

A standard deck of playing cards has 52 cards divided into 4 suits: hearts, diamonds, clubs and spades, each with 13 cards. The favorable outcomes for drawing a heart are 13. Thus, the probability is the ratio of favorable outcomes to total outcomes, which is 13/52. This fraction simplifies to 1/4. So, the probability of drawing a heart is 1/4.

Option A:
Option A, 1/4, is exactly the simplified fraction 13/52. It acknowledges that there are four equally sized suits and that hearts constitute one of the four, giving a 25% chance on a single draw.

Option B:
Option B, 1/3, would require three suits or some other distribution of cards, which is not the case in a standard deck.

Option C:
Option C, 1/13, incorrectly treats the number of ranks as the total sample space, ignoring that each suit has all 13 ranks.

Option D:
Option D, 3/13, would imply that hearts comprise nearly one-quarter of the cards, but with a different count than the actual 13 per suit. It is not supported by the structure of the deck.

Inductive generalisations draw probable, not certain, conclusions from sample data. If the 100 commuters were chosen randomly and the sample reflects the diversity of city commuters, the observed 70% support provides reasonably strong evidence that most commuters prefer the metro. However, sampling error and bias remain possible, so the conclusion is not guaranteed. The cautious phrase “probably reasonable” accurately reflects the strength of this inductive inference.

Option A:
Option A treats the inductive conclusion as certain, ignoring the role of sampling variability and possible bias. Even a good sample cannot guarantee exact population proportions.

Option B:
Option B recognises that a well chosen sample can justify a probable claim about the population while still leaving room for uncertainty. This matches standard statistical reasoning.

Option C:
Option C dismisses all inferences from a sample of 100, which is unjustified; while larger samples are better, 100 can still yield useful information when properly drawn.

Option D:
Option D confuses the target group, since commuters are precisely the relevant population for this question; interviewing them is appropriate, not a flaw.

A savyabhicāra hetu is one that is found in cases where the sādhya is present and also in cases where the sādhya is absent, making the middle term irregular and unreliable. Water is present in many lakes with fish and also in various water bodies without fish, so the presence of water does not uniformly indicate fish. The hetu “having water” thus admits counterinstances and fails to secure the conclusion.

Option A:
Option A uses “being a quality” as reason for “being produced,” which is debated but not a simple case of the same hetu occurring with and without the sādhya in an obvious way.

Option B:
Option B is the standard valid inference where smoke is treated as a reliable sign of fire; the hetu is not savyabhicāra in the classical example.

Option C:
Option C also shows a too broad reason (“having horns”), since many non cows have horns; it is another kind of anaikāntika style defect, though the water–fish case in D shows the irregularity even more clearly.

Option D:
Option D aptly shows a reason that is too broad, appearing in many cases lacking the intended conclusion, which is the hallmark of savyabhicāra.

Let the present age of the son be x years, so the father’s present age is 3x years. After 10 years, their ages will be x + 10 and 3x + 10 respectively. According to the given ratio, (3x + 10) : (x + 10) = 2 : 1, which leads to the equation 3x + 10 = 2(x + 10). Simplifying, 3x + 10 = 2x + 20 gives x = 10, so the son is presently 10 years old.

Option A:
Option A, 8 years, would make the father’s present age 24 and their ages after 10 years 18 and 34, giving a ratio of 34 : 18, which simplifies to 17 : 9, not 2 : 1. Thus, it fails the future ratio condition.

Option B:
Option B, 9 years, would give the father’s present age as 27 and future ages as 19 and 37, yielding 37 : 19, which is not 2 : 1.

Option C:
Option C satisfies both the present and future conditions: the father is 30 and son is 10 now, and after 10 years they will be 40 and 20, giving a ratio of 2 : 1. This consistency confirms 10 years as the correct present age of the son.

Option D:
Option D, 12 years, leads to a father’s present age of 36 and future ages of 22 and 46, giving the ratio 46 : 22 = 23 : 11, which again does not match the required 2 : 1.

Anvayavyatireki anumāna employs both positive and negative instances to establish vyāpti. For smoke and fire we observe places with smoke that have fire and places without fire that have no smoke. This dual pattern strengthens the connection and makes smoke a reliable sign of fire. The hill example is therefore the standard anvayavyatireki illustration in Nyāya logic.

Option A:
Option A matches the textbook case where both co presence and co absence of smoke and fire are used to ground the inference.

Option B:
Option B is the kevalānvayi example based only on positive knowable–nameable instances.

Option C:
Option C is a more abstract metaphysical case and is often discussed under kevalavyatireki rather than anvayavyatireki.

Option D:
Option D likewise belongs to a different pattern and is not the simple everyday example used to teach anvayavyatireki.

HTTPS uses TLS/SSL to encrypt the data sent between browser and server, helping protect sensitive information from eavesdropping and alteration. This is why it is essential for banking, logins and e-commerce.

Option A:
Compression may sometimes be used but is not the fundamental security feature; encryption is the key advantage.

Option B:
This option correctly states that HTTPS provides an encrypted channel, improving confidentiality and integrity of web traffic.

Option C:
Network speed is limited by bandwidth and latency; HTTPS cannot magically remove those limits.

Option D:
Backups are a separate storage/administration function; HTTPS merely secures data in transit.

Sāmānyatodṛṣṭa anumāna involves inference based on general patterns of co occurrence rather than a clear temporal order of cause and effect. Movement of leaves is regularly associated with the presence of air or wind, even though air itself may not be directly perceived. From this generally observed relation, one infers air from leaf movement. Nyāya uses such examples to illustrate inference to entities known only through their effects.

Option A:
Option A, pūrvavat, describes inference from present cause to future effect, as when dark clouds lead us to expect rain.

Option B:
Option B, śeṣavat, is often used for inferring an unperceived cause from a known effect in a more definite causal chain, as in inferring fire from smoke.

Option C:
Option C correctly classifies the case as sāmānyatodṛṣṭa, where broad, repeated association lets us infer something unseen like air from an observable sign.

Option D:
Option D, kevalānvayi, refers to inference where only positive instances exist and no genuine negative instances are available, which is not the key feature of this example.

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.

The given series increases by a constant difference of 3 between successive terms: 2 to 5, 5 to 8 and 8 to 11. To continue the same pattern, we add 3 to the last term 11. This gives 11 + 3 = 14 as the next number in the sequence. Since the rule is consistent for all previous terms, 14 uniquely fits the observed arithmetic progression.

Option A:
Option A, 13, would require a difference of 2 from 11, which breaks the established +3 pattern observed throughout the series. Choosing 13 ignores the constant increment that defines the given progression. Therefore, it is not consistent with the rule governing the sequence.

Option B:
Option B, 14, maintains the constant difference of +3 between consecutive terms, which is the key feature of this arithmetic progression. It is obtained directly by adding 3 to 11, and thus matches the pattern seen in all earlier steps. This makes 14 the logically correct continuation of the series.

Option C:
Option C, 15, would imply adding 4 to 11, which is inconsistent with the earlier differences of 3. Although close in magnitude, it does not preserve the uniform increment required in an arithmetic progression. Hence, it cannot be accepted as the next term.

Option D:
Option D, 16, would represent an even larger jump of 5, again contradicting the constant difference already established. Such a change would introduce a new pattern not supported by the original data, so it is not appropriate.

ICT fundamentally involves the convergence of computers, communication networks and digital media. This integration allows users to handle text, audio, video and data in seamless ways. In education, this enables activities like online teaching, digital libraries and administrative automation. Therefore, the feature that highlights integration of computing and communication for digital information is the most accurate description.

Option A:
This option wrongly narrows ICT to textbook printing, which is a traditional activity that may not involve digital technologies at all. It ignores communication networks and interactive media, so it fails to reflect the core nature of ICT.

Option B:
This option captures that ICT links computers with communication systems to manage information throughout its life cycle. It emphasises digital processing and transmission, which underpin tools such as email, LMS and MOOCs. This makes it a good representation of ICT characteristics.

Option C:
Option C focuses only on loudspeakers, which are simple audio devices and do not represent the full breadth of ICT. Without computing and networking, this example is too limited to define ICT.

Option D:
Option D confuses ICT with physical infrastructure development. Buildings may host ICT, but construction activities are not themselves part of ICT characteristics.

Information overload occurs when the volume of available material exceeds a person’s capacity to process it meaningfully. The solution is not to consume more indiscriminately, but to become selective and strategic. Information literacy combines skills in formulating precise questions, choosing appropriate databases, using filters and evaluating authorship, evidence and bias. Learners who master these skills can turn abundance into an asset rather than a burden.

Option A:
Treating all sources as equally valid undermines academic quality and can lead to the use of misinformation. Scholars are expected to differentiate between peer-reviewed research, opinion pieces and unverified claims.

Option B:
This option correctly emphasises a proactive, skills-based approach to managing digital information. By learning how to search and evaluate systematically, students can focus on the most relevant and trustworthy resources, saving time and improving the quality of their work.

Option C:
Completely avoiding digital resources would cut learners off from up-to-date research and many primary documents. It is neither realistic nor desirable in contemporary higher education.

Option D:
Copy-paste behaviour without reading constitutes poor scholarship and often leads to plagiarism. It does not contribute to understanding and ignores the need for synthesis and critical thinking.