Logical syllogism — determine which conclusions follow beyond doubt. Statements: 1) All the research scholars are psychologists. 2) Some psychologists are scientists. Conclusions: (1) All the research scholars are scientists. (2) Some research scholars are scientists. (3) Some scientists are psychologists. (4) Some psychologists are research scholars.

Introduction / Context:
This problem blends a universal inclusion with a particular inclusion. We must identify conclusions that are guaranteed by these relations.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• All research scholars ⊆ psychologists.
• Some psychologists ⊆ scientists (equivalently, some scientists ⊇ psychologists).
• Standard existence: research scholars exist for deriving a “Some …” statement involving them.

Concept / Approach:
Convert the “Some …” statement: “Some psychologists are scientists” implies “Some scientists are psychologists”. Also, from “All research scholars are psychologists,” it is valid (with existence) to state “Some psychologists are research scholars.” However, we cannot say all research scholars are scientists unless the “Some psychologists …” specifically references research scholars, which it does not.

Step-by-Step Solution:
(3) Some scientists are psychologists — direct conversion of Statement 2; follows. (4) Some psychologists are research scholars — from Statement 1 and existence of research scholars; follows. (1) All research scholars are scientists — not guaranteed; the “some” that are scientists might be different psychologists. (2) Some research scholars are scientists — also not guaranteed without a link connecting the “some” of Statement 2 to research scholars.

Verification / Alternative check:
Model: psychologists = {a,b,c}; scientists = {a}; research scholars = {b}. Then (1) and (2) fail, but (3) and (4) hold, proving only those two are necessary.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Options including (1) or claiming all four overstate the data. Option (d) omits (4), which is supported under standard exam existence assumptions.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming that a “Some …” statement about a superset automatically covers its subset members.

Final Answer:
Only (3) and (4)