Given below are two statements:

Statement I: An inference which is based on the middle term being only positively related to the major term is called Kevalanvayi.

Statement II: In Kevalanvayi anumana, the knowledge of Vyapti between the middle and major terms is at through the method of argument in

In the light of the above statements, choose the correct from the options given below:

The correct option is Statement I is true, but statement II is false.

Analysis of Statement I:
In classical Indian logic (Nyaya school), an inference (anumana) is classified based on the nature of Vyapti (the relation of invariable concomitance between the middle term, Hetu, and the major term, Sadhya).
An inference is called Kevalanvayi when it is based on a middle term that is only positively related to the major term. In this case, there are no negative instances (Vipaksha) where the major term is absent. For example, "All knowable objects are nameable; the pot is a knowable object; therefore, the pot is nameable." Here, we cannot find any object that is not knowable or not nameable to show a negative relation. Thus, Statement I is correct.

Analysis of Statement II:
Statement II claims that in Kevalanvayi anumana, the knowledge of Vyapti between the middle and major terms is arrived at through a method of argument that is either incomplete or incorrectly described in the text prompt (which ends abruptly with "through the method of argument in"). In Nyaya logic, since there are no negative examples (Vipaksha) available in Kevalanvayi, the Vyapti can only be established through agreement in presence (Anvaya), not through agreement in absence (Vyatireka). The statement in the prompt is grammatically incomplete and logically incorrect in establishing the method of Vyapti for Kevalanvayi. Therefore, Statement II is false.