Statement I: All surgeons are doctors.

• Statement II: All doctors are healthcare workers.
• Conclusion: All surgeons are healthcare workers.

1. A

   True

2. B

   False

3. C

   Uncertain

4. D

   None of the above

Appeared in: RML MAINS 2025

Explanation

• The conclusion is a direct and logical deduction from the two given statements, which act as premises.
• This structure follows the transitive property in logic: If all members of group A are in group B, and all members of group B are in group C, then it must be true that all members of group A are in group C.
• In this case, Surgeons (A) are a subset of Doctors (B), and Doctors (B) are a subset of Healthcare Workers (C). Therefore, Surgeons (A) must be a subset of Healthcare Workers (C).

Why Other Options Were Wrong

• Option B: The conclusion is not false because it is a valid deduction based on the provided premises. There is no logical flaw in the reasoning.
• Option C: The conclusion is not uncertain. The premises 'All A are B' and 'All B are C' provide complete and definite information, leaving no room for ambiguity.
• Option D: This option is incorrect because a correct choice ('True') is available among the options.

Related Visual

Clinical Relevance

• Nursing practice connection: This is primarily an exam-oriented knowledge point with limited direct bedside application, so retain Categorical Syllogism in Logical Reasoning as background academic context rather than a clinical decision trigger.
• Logical reasoning is a fundamental skill for nurses to interpret information, make sound clinical judgments, and follow protocols correctly.
• This type of thinking helps in understanding cause-and-effect relationships in patient care, such as 'All patients with condition X need medication Y; this patient has condition X; therefore, this patient needs medication Y.'.
• What if? - If Statement I was 'Some surgeons are doctors,' the conclusion 'All surgeons are healthcare workers' would become uncertain. It would no longer be guaranteed, as not all surgeons would necessarily fall under the 'doctor' category.

How to Approach the Question

• Identify the question as a syllogism, which requires evaluating a conclusion based on two or more premises.
• Represent the relationship between the categories. Think of them as sets or groups: Surgeons (S), Doctors (D), and Healthcare Workers (H).
• Translate the premises into set notation: Premise 1 is 'All S are D' (S ⊂ D). Premise 2 is 'All D are H' (D ⊂ H).
• Analyze the conclusion 'All S are H' (S ⊂ H) by linking the premises.
• If S is entirely within D, and D is entirely within H, then S must logically be entirely within H.
• Since the conclusion logically and necessarily follows from the premises, evaluate it as 'True'.

Concept Tested & Keywords

• Concept Tested: Categorical Syllogism in Logical Reasoning
• Stem keywords: Statement I, Statement II, Conclusion, surgeons, doctors, healthcare workers
• Lead-in keywords: True, False, Uncertain
• Negative lead-in flag: FALSE changes the reasoning strategy; look for the exception or incorrect statement rather than the true statement.

Question ID

QtEhMA4ZK4rvs35RaXFu0Z

Copy ID