Which of the following illustrate the fallacy of the unproved middle (asiddha hetu)?

1.The reason (hetu) itself is not established in the locus

2.The locus of the inference does not really exist

3.The reason is not actually present in the subject of inference

4.The reason is invariably present wherever the probandum is

5.The reason is contradicted by another equally strong reason

A1, 2 and 3 only ✓ Correct

B2, 3 and 5 only

C1, 4 and 5 only

D1, 2 and 4 only

Correct answer: (A) 1, 2 and 3 only

Explanation

Statements 1, 2 and 3 each describe a form of the unproved reason (asiddha hetu).

When the reason itself is not established in the locus, it is an unproved middle.

When the locus of the inference does not really exist, it is ashrayasiddha.

When the reason is absent from the subject of inference, it is svarupasiddha.

These three exhaust the classical varieties of asiddha hetu.

Want more like this? Create a free account to practise a full test, track your progress, and get spaced-repetition review.