Read the following statement carefully and identify the conclusion that follows. Statement: All actors are professionals. All professionals are creative. Some creative people are lazy. Conclusions: I. Some actors are lazy. II. All actors are creative.

Correct — B.
Rule: All A are B + All B are C → All A are C.
A Some statement about C tells you nothing about A.

Actors sit inside professionals, and professionals inside creative people, so all actors are creative: II follows.

The lazy creative people may all be non-actors. Some actors are lazy is possible, not certain, so I does not follow → option (b).

Why the others are wrong

• (a)
  Only I follows — Some actors are lazy is only a possibility: the lazy group overlaps creative people, but nothing places that overlap among actors. This option also drops II, which is certain.
• (c)
  Both I and II follow — I fails: the lazy people are some of the creative ones, and those may all be outside the actors. II alone is forced by the two All statements.
• (d)
  Neither I nor II follows — II is certain: every actor is a professional and every professional is creative, so every actor is creative. 'Neither I nor II follows' throws away that definite conclusion.

Syllogisms are checked with nested circles. Draw actors inside professionals, and professionals inside creative.

Some creative people are lazy puts a lazy circle overlapping the creative one, but you may draw it outside the professionals entirely. A conclusion follows only if it holds in every such drawing.

II holds in every drawing. I holds in some and fails in others, so it does not follow.

Key facts

• All A are B and All B are C together give All A are C.
• Some C are D says nothing definite about A, a subset of C.
• A conclusion must hold in every possible diagram, not just one.

Common traps

• Carrying some down a chain of all statements, as if some creative people being lazy made some actors lazy
• Treating possible as follows: I could be true but is not certain

No directly related past PYQ was found.