Given below are two statements:

Statement (I): According to classical Indian school of logic (Nyaya) the argument "Sound is eternal because it is audible" is fallacious.

Statement (II): According to classical Indian school of logic the argument "Sound is eternal because it is audible" commits the fallacy of irregular middle term where the middle term is too wide.

In the light of the above statements, choose the most appropriate answer from the options given below:

The correct option is: Statement I is correct but Statement II is incorrect.

Let us analyze the two statements step-by-step according to the classical Indian school of logic (Nyāya):

1. Analysis of Statement (I):
The argument presented is: "Sound is eternal because it is audible."
In Nyāya syllogism (Anumāna):
- The minor term (Pakṣa) is "Sound" (that about which something is being inferred).
- The major term (Sādhya) is "eternal" (the property to be inferred).
- The middle term (Hetu or Liṅga) is "audibility" (the reason or ground for inference).
According to Nyāya, audibility is a unique property belonging exclusively to sound (the Pakṣa). It does not exist in any other eternal or non-eternal things. Because the middle term ("audible") is present only in the minor term ("sound") and nowhere else, it fails to establish a universal relation (Vyāpti) with the major term ("eternal"). Therefore, this argument is indeed fallacious (commits a Hetvābhāsa). Thus, Statement (I) is correct.

2. Analysis of Statement (II):
Statement (II) claims that the argument commits the fallacy of irregular middle term (Savyabhicāra or Anaikaṅtika) where the middle term is "too wide" (Sādhāraṇa).
A middle term is "too wide" (Sādhāraṇa Anaikaṅtika) when it is present in both positive instances (where the major term is present) and negative instances (where the major term is absent). For example, "The hill is fiery because it is knowable" (where "knowable" is too wide because it exists in both fiery and non-fiery things).
However, in our argument, the middle term "audibility" is present only in the minor term ("sound"). It is not present anywhere else (neither in other eternal things like space/soul nor in non-eternal things like a pot). A middle term that is too narrow or exclusive to the Pakṣa is called too narrow or non-exclusive (Asādhāraṇa Anaikaṅtika), not too wide. Therefore, the argument commits the fallacy of irregular middle term where the middle term is too narrow, making Statement (II) incorrect.