The argument 'Anamika must be elsewhere, since she is known to be alive and not to be seen at her house', is based on which of the following means of knowledge (Pramāṇa)?
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:

Correct option is A

The given argument uses Postulation (Arthāpatti) as the means of knowledge. Arthāpatti is a logical inference made to explain an undeniable fact that cannot otherwise be explained.
In this case:
· It is known that Anamika is alive (a fact).
· She is not at her house (another fact).
· The conclusion "Anamika must be elsewhere" is a postulation (Arthāpatti) made to reconcile these two observations.
Information Booster: 1. Arthāpatti (Postulation): Used to reconcile facts through logical necessity. Example: If someone does not eat during the day but is alive, one postulates they eat at night.
2. Anupalabdhi (Non-Cognition): Knowledge of absence through direct perception of non-existence. Example: "There is no book on the table."
3. Upamāna (Comparison): Knowledge through analogy or comparison. Example: Recognizing a wild animal as similar to a described domestic one.
4. Śabda (Verbal Testimony): Knowledge from credible verbal sources like scriptures or experts.
Additional Knowledge:
(b) Non-Cognition (Anupalabdhi): This refers to knowledge of the absence of something. For example, "Anamika is not at her house" is known through Anupalabdhi, but it does not explain where she is.
(c) Comparison (Upamāna): This refers to understanding something by analogy or comparison, which is not relevant in this scenario.
(d) Verbal Testimony (Śabda): This refers to knowledge derived from reliable verbal communication, such as statements by an authority or texts, which is not used here.