Given below are two statements: Statement I: Nyaya syllogism is only inductive…

CONCEPT

A syllogism can be classified on two independent axes: how its universal relation is established and how the conclusion is derived. Inductive grounding moves from observed cases to a general relation; deductive application uses that relation to reach a conclusion about a particular case.

“Formal” concerns validity determined by the structure of premises and conclusion, whereas “material” concerns the truth and evidential grounding of their content. Nyāya combines a five-member formal presentation with materially grounded vyāpti; Aristotelian categorical syllogism tests formal deduction.

APPLICATION

1. Statement I says Nyāya syllogism is only inductive and material. Its example supports vyāpti through observed concomitance, but upanaya applies that universal relation to the subject and nigamana draws the conclusion. Its method is therefore inductive-deductive and formal-material, so Statement I is false.

2. Statement II concerns the Aristotelian categorical syllogism. Its validity is assessed by the formal relation of the major premise, minor premise, and conclusion; it is a deductive and formal structure. Statement II is true.

3. Combining the evaluations gives: Statement I is false and Statement II is true.

CROSS-CHECK / CONTRAST

• “Both Statement I and Statement II are true” omits the deductive application within the Nyāya sequence.

• “Both Statement I and Statement II are false” imports Aristotle’s broader treatment of induction into the categorical syllogism under comparison.

• “Statement I is true but Statement II is false” reverses the two established classifications.

Therefore, Statement I is false but Statement II is true.