According to Nyaya (Classical Indian School of Logic) Which of the following argument involves the fallacy of Anupsamhari (non-exclusive middle term)?

The correct option is: All things are non-eternal because they are knowable

Step-by-Step Explanation:

1. Understanding the Fallacy of Anupasamhari:
In Nyaya philosophy, Anupasamhari (non-exclusive or non-conclusive middle term) is a type of Savyabhichara (fallacy of the irregular middle). It occurs when the middle term (hetu) is all-inclusive (present in all things) and therefore has no negative instances (vipaksha) or positive instances (sapaksha) outside the subject (paksha). In other words, because the middle term applies to everything in the universe, we cannot form a comparison (a universal relationship or vyapti) to prove or disprove the assertion. The middle term becomes non-exclusive because nothing is left outside its domain to serve as a comparison.

2. Analyzing the Arguments:
Let us analyze the correct argument: "All things are non-eternal because they are knowable".
- Subject (Paksha): "All things" (which includes everything that exists).
- Major Term (Sadhya): "non-eternal".
- Middle Term (Hetu): "knowable".

3. Why this leads to Anupasamhari:
- Here, the middle term is "knowable". In Nyaya epistemology, everything that exists is knowable (jneyatva).
- Because the subject (paksha) is defined as "All things", the middle term "knowable" covers the entire universe.
- Since the middle term is all-inclusive, there is no object left outside the subject that is either known to be non-eternal (positive instance/sapaksha) or known to be eternal (negative instance/vipaksha) to establish a universal relation of concomitance (vyapti).
- Without a valid basis for comparison, the middle term "knowable" fails to prove that all things are "non-eternal". Hence, it involves the fallacy of Anupasamhari.