(a) No, that's not right. If you examine the three statements carefully you will see that they offer different tests of foreseeability, the first being the widest.

The widest (and least demanding) test is applied when deciding whether a duty of care exists or not. The middle test is used to decide if there is an obligation to prevent foreseeable harm. The obligation arises only if, in the circumstances, it was foreseeable that careless conduct of the kind engaged in by the defendant would cause harm of some kind to the plaintiff.

The most restricted test of foreseeability is used to decide whether the defendant should be liable for the particular harm the plaintiff has suffered as the result of the breach.