Which kind of inference is illustrated when one argues that sound must be a quality because it cannot be a substance or an activity or a relation and so on?

Which kind of inference is illustrated when one argues that sound must be a quality because it cannot be a substance or an activity or a relation and so on? Correct Answer Sesāvata

Anumana is a Sanskrit word that means "following knowledge" or "inference."

Key Points

  • In Indian philosophy, it is one of the pramanas, or sources of true knowledge.
  • Anumana comes to a new conclusion and truth by combining observation, past truths, and logic. 
  • Anumana can also be classified into 3 types:
    • Purvavat 
    • Sheshavat
    • Samanyatodrishta
  • Sesavat Anumana: An inference in which we infer the unperceived cause from a perceived effect.
  • It entails demonstrating something's truth by ruling out all other possibilities.
  • This is demonstrated when someone claims that sound must be qualified because it cannot be a substance, action, relationship, or anything else.

Therefore, Ṡ Sesāvata inference is illustrated when one argues that sound must be qualified because it cannot be a substance or an activity or a relation and so on. 

Additional Information

  •  Purvavat Anumana: An inference in which we infer the unperceived effect from a perceived cause.
  • Samanyatodrasta Anumana: An inference in which we infer not based on causal relation but the experience of uniformity.

Related Questions

Statement I: The Sound produced from a violin and loudspeaker of the same frequency are distinguishable because of the difference in the quality of the sound Statement II: The intensity of sound increases with an increase in the amplitude of the sound wave 
Read the passage carefully and choose the best answer to each question out of the four alternatives.
Doing an internship at the University of Lille in France, I almost always found myself stuck whenever I had to speak to non-Indians about India or on anything'Indian'. This was more because of the subtle differences in the way the French understood India in comparison to what I thought was 'Indian'. For instance, when I,or any Indian for that matter, say 'Hindi' is an Indian language, what it means is that it is one of the languages widely spoken in India. This need not be similar tothe understanding that the French would have when they hear of 'Hindi' as an Indian language. Because for them Hindi then becomes the only language spoken inIndia. This is a natural inference that the French, Germans, Italians and many other European nationals would tend to make, because that is generally how it is intheir own respective countries. The risk of such inappropriate generalisations made about 'Indian' is not restricted to language alone but also for India's landscape,cuisine, movies, music, climate, economic development and even political ideologies. The magnitude of diversity of one European country can be easily compared tothat of one of the Indian State, isn't it? Can they imagine that India is one country whose diversity can be equated to that of the entire European continent? Theonus is upon us to go ahead and clarify the nuances in 'Indianness' while we converse. But why should one do so? How does it even matter to clarify? The writer was working at a university in which country?