Deductive Reasoning Application Flashcards
6 cards from real HSRT practice questions. Tap to flip, then mark Knew It or Still Learning — missed cards come back until you master them.
Read the first 6 Deductive Reasoning Application flashcards as text
Premise 1: All patients with serum sodium below 125 mEq/L require urgent intervention. Premise 2: Mr. Ortega's serum sodium is 121 mEq/L. What follows deductively?
Answer: Mr. Ortega requires urgent intervention
If all patients below 125 mEq/L require urgent intervention, and Mr. Ortega is below that threshold, deductive logic guarantees he requires urgent intervention.
A clinical protocol states: 'No patient on anticoagulation therapy should receive intramuscular injections.' The nurse knows that Mrs. Lee is on warfarin. What deductively follows?
Answer: Mrs. Lee should not receive intramuscular injections
A universal prohibition applied to a specific case deductively yields a certain conclusion: Mrs. Lee should not receive IM injections.
From the premises: 'All community-acquired pneumonias should be treated with empiric antibiotics within 4 hours of diagnosis' and 'Patient X was diagnosed with community-acquired pneumonia at 10:00 AM,' which deductive conclusion is valid?
Answer: Patient X should receive empiric antibiotics no later than 2:00 PM
Applying the universal rule to the specific patient: diagnosis at 10:00 AM + 4-hour window = treatment no later than 2:00 PM.
A medical student is presented with the following argument: 'If a patient is in anaphylactic shock, epinephrine is indicated. This patient is not in anaphylactic shock. Therefore, epinephrine is not indicated.' Is this deductively valid?
Answer: No — this is the fallacy of denying the antecedent; epinephrine may be indicated for other reasons
Denying the antecedent (If P then Q; not P; therefore not Q) is an invalid deductive form. Epinephrine has other indications beyond anaphylaxis.
A physical therapist deduces: 'All patients with a Berg Balance Scale score below 45 are at high fall risk. Ms. Chen scored 38. Therefore Ms. Chen is at high fall risk.' This argument is BEST characterized as:
Answer: Deductively valid — the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises if they are true
The argument is a valid categorical syllogism: universal rule + specific case = certain conclusion. Deductive validity depends on logical form, not on whether the premises are factually perfect.
Premise: 'If a medication has a narrow therapeutic index, plasma level monitoring is required.' Medication Y has a narrow therapeutic index. A pharmacist concludes that plasma level monitoring is required for Medication Y. This inference is:
Answer: Modus ponens — a valid deductive argument affirming the antecedent
The form 'If P then Q; P; therefore Q' is modus ponens, the most fundamental valid deductive argument form.