EDAIC MCQ vs MTF: Judge Each Statement Separately
Understand why EDAIC MTF practice requires a fresh true-or-false decision for every statement, with a worked logic exercise and a review worksheet.
For EDAIC Part I, do not approach a question as though you must select one best answer. Evaluate each response as its own true-or-false decision under the shared stem. “MCQ” is a broad label; the specific format matters more than the label on a question bank.
ESAIC describes Part I as using multiple true/false papers. Its Diploma Guide explains the stem-and-five-response structure. Check the current Part I instructions for your sitting.
Separate the shared context from each claim
First identify what the stem supplies. It might define a system, a condition, or a group of subjects. Carry that context into every response, but do not carry your answer to response A into response B.
For each statement, ask: What precise relationship is being asserted? Which part makes it true or false? Which assumptions am I entitled to use? This procedure is our practice recommendation, not an official scoring rubric.
The statements may share subject matter. Independent judgement does not mean their scientific content is unrelated; it means one answer does not dictate the next. Avoid searching for a pleasing pattern such as two true and three false.
Try an EDAIC-style MTF question on AnesCORE
Work through EDAIC-style Part 1 Multiple True/False questions — 30,000 across all 14 topics, each statement with its own explanation.
Practise with a neutral worked example
Use an invented ratio exercise before adding clinical detail. Suppose the stem defines R = A/B, with A and B positive and with compatible units. Consider these statements:
| Statement | Judgement | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Doubling A while B stays fixed doubles R | True | The numerator doubles |
| Doubling B while A stays fixed doubles R | False | The ratio halves |
| Doubling both A and B leaves R unchanged | True | The factors cancel |
| R must rise whenever A rises | False | B can also change |
| A change in R proves A changed | False | B alone could change |
These are original teaching statements, not EDAIC samples or recalled examination content. Notice that the fourth statement resembles the first, but removes an essential condition. Recognising the subject is insufficient; you must inspect the whole claim.
Now change the stem so B is explicitly fixed throughout. Re-evaluate the set rather than retaining the earlier answer pattern. This demonstrates how the shared stem changes the permitted assumptions.
Do not use vocabulary as an answer key
Words such as “always”, “only” and “may” deserve attention because they change a claim's scope. They do not automatically tell you whether it is true. An absolute statement can be a correct definition, and a cautious-sounding statement can still be false.
Rewrite a difficult response in plain language while preserving its qualifier. If you remove “at constant temperature”, “at equilibrium”, or “in this population”, you may accidentally create a different question.
When two terms are commonly confused, define both before deciding. During review, put the distinction into a comparison card rather than memorising the original answer letter.
Answer an EDAIC-style question
This is one exam-format Part 1 multiple-true-false question from our bank. Mark each statement true or false, then see the worked answer.
Regarding the pathophysiology of oxygen delivery and consumption in circulatory shock:
Mark each statement true or false:
In healthy adults at rest, systemic oxygen delivery is approximately 1000 mL/min while oxygen consumption is about 250 mL/min, creating a physiological oxygen reserve.
When systemic oxygen delivery decreases, oxygen consumption immediately falls in direct proportion, indicating supply dependency at all levels of DO₂.
Cardiac output is determined by the product of heart rate and stroke volume, with stroke volume being influenced by preload, afterload, and myocardial contractility.
The unifying feature of all forms of shock, regardless of aetiology, is acute circulatory failure associated with inadequate cellular oxygen utilisation.
In septic shock, early goal-directed therapy targeting supranormal oxygen delivery values has been shown to consistently reduce mortality across all patient populations.
Use a statement-level review sheet
Make five rows, one for each response, and record your answer, confidence, decisive phrase, and correction. This reveals whether a single correct-looking stem concealed several different weaknesses.
For a false statement, identify the smallest change that would make it defensible. For a true statement, explain why its conditions are sufficient. If your explanation amounts to “the answer key says so”, return to the source before considering the review complete.
Keep uncertainty visible even when a guess happens to be correct. A fortunate answer should not remove a concept from your study list.
Translate the method into timed practice
Learn the format slowly first, then practise making clear decisions within your planned study block. Use the official candidate materials to confirm the actual examination interface; avoid inferring its behaviour from an unrelated app.
ESAIC states that Part I has no negative marking and advises answering all questions. See its marking description. In revision, however, separately label guesses so your learning record remains honest.
The official preparation page provides sample material for format orientation. Our existing MTF technique guide covers the wider exam approach.
Use the AnesCORE question bank to practise this habit: read the stem, decide on each response, and explain each judgement before reviewing the answer.
Sources
Prepared with AI assistance for examination revision; this article is not a patient-care protocol or a substitute for current primary guidance. Sources checked 7 October 2026.
Start preparing for EDAIC Part I
Syllabus-mapped lessons, 30,000 MTF questions, spaced-repetition flashcards and an AI study plan — in one platform.
Start free