Can I afford to deduce the following syllogism (from a formal point of view)?

All X saves some Y.

Z is an X.

Therefore, Z saves some Y.

Why the question's reasoning is not sound:

1, 2, 3...are numbers enabling us to count to 3.

2 is a number.

Therefore, 2 enables us to count to 3.

Police work saves lives.

Friendly Policewoman Pearl talking to a class of 5th graders is police work.

Therefore, Policeman Bob's class talk saves lives.

In plain English, surgical care procedure Z is not necessarily a life-saving procedure, even though it is a medical procedure.  Rx:  be clear, define, what medical care X and surgical care Z include, and what results they produce, or, use quantifiers such as "all."  The false assumption is that Z surgical care is powerful, life-saving, because it is labeled "surgical care," or "miracle potion," etc.  If you replace "surgical care" with "smiling at patient" or "tickling patient's feet," etc., that shows by reduction to absurdity the false assumption that "(all) surgical care necessarily saves lives."  Likewise, not all medical care "saves lives," e.g. some restorative medical care and some cosmetic surgical care do not "save lives" if saving life is clearly defined as a "procedure that extends life by correcting a life-threatening circumstance."