- Step 1: Break down the premises. The question provides two premises:
- Premise 1: All managers are trained (every manager has received training).
- Premise 2: Some employees are managers (at least one employee is a manager).
- Step 2: Analyze logical implications. Since some employees are managers, and all managers are trained, those employees who are managers must also be trained. This implies that at least some employees are trained.
- Step 3: Evaluate the options.
- Option (1): "All employees are trained" is too broad. The premises only confirm that manager-employees are trained, not all employees, so this is not necessarily true.
- Option (2): "Some employees are trained" aligns with the conclusion that the employees who are managers are trained, making it a strong candidate.
- Option (3): "No employees are trained" contradicts the fact that manager-employees are trained, so it is incorrect.
- Option (4): "Some managers are not employees" is not supported by the premises, as no information is given about managers who are not employees.
- Step 4: Confirm logical necessity. Option (2) is the only statement that must be true, as the overlap between employees and managers ensures some employees are trained.
- Step 5: Visualize with a Venn diagram. Imagine managers as a circle within the trained circle, and some employees overlapping with managers. This overlap confirms that some employees are trained.
- Step 6: Final conclusion. Option (2) Some employees are trained is the correct answer, as it logically follows from the premises.
\bigskip