Given below are two statements: Statement I: According to classical Indian…

Concept

Nyāya inference links induction and deduction: a universal relation (vyāpti) is grounded through observed agreement, and that relation is then applied to a particular case. Its evaluation is formal-material because both the inferential structure and the truth/content of the reason matter.

A fallacy (hetvābhāsa) in this framework is a defect of the reason as used in the subject matter; it is therefore treated as a material fallacy rather than merely a defect in symbolic form.

Application

1. Statement I matches the Nyāya classification: its recognized hetvābhāsas are material fallacies connected with the content and probative force of the reason.

2. Statement II contains one sound part and one false denial. The syllogism is deductive-inductive, but it is also formal-material; therefore the phrase ‘not formal-material’ makes the statement incorrect.

Contrast

• Both Statement I and Statement II are correct — this accepts the denial of the formal-material character, although Nyāya inference attends to both form and material truth.

• Both Statement I and Statement II are incorrect — this rejects the material-fallacy account even though hetvābhāsa concerns defects in the reason’s content and force.

• Statement I is incorrect but Statement II is correct — this reverses both assessments: the first is the material-fallacy account, while the second wrongly denies the formal-material character.

Result

Statement I is correct, but Statement II is incorrect.