Eligibility Decision — Marketing Profile (self-contained policy + candidate; minor text repair applied) Policy (Marketing Officer/Deputy Manager): • PG in Marketing (degree/diploma) with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant Marketing experience ≥ 3 years. • All met → Select; any clear shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Data inadequate. Candidate (repaired for clarity): Suresh Mehta — Born 19 May 1975; Graduation 58%; PG (Marketing) 62%; Worked for past 7 years in Marketing Division; Selection process 50% (assumed from context; original line appeared malformed). Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
This item includes a minor transcription defect (“He has secured 50% marks in the past seven years in the Marketing Division...”). Applying the Recovery-First Policy, we minimally repair the stem to restore solvability: interpret the dangling “secured 50%” as the selection score, while keeping all substantive data intact.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy thresholds (Marketing): PG ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 3 years.
• Repaired assumption: selection score = 50% (consistent with similar items and phrasing).
• All other fields are explicit and consistent.

Concept / Approach:
After minimal repair, apply the policy deterministically. Any single failure would disqualify; otherwise, the candidate is selected.

Step-by-Step Solution:
PG in Marketing: 62% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 58% ≥ 55% → Pass.Selection process: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: 7 years in Marketing ≥ 3 years → Pass.All checks satisfied → Decision = Select.

Verification / Alternative check:
Had the “50%” referred to graduation or PG, the given explicit percentages (58% graduation; 62% PG) already exceed minima; therefore the only plausible dangling field is selection. The minimal repair preserves intent and yields a single, non-contradictory interpretation.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Not to be selected” would require a shortfall; none exists. “Data inadequate” is unnecessary because a single reasonable repair restores completeness. “Refer to VP marketing” is not an available rule in this policy.

Common Pitfalls:
Over-repairing the stem (adding new facts) instead of minimally clarifying the existing fragment; treating an exact-cutoff score as a fail when the policy uses ≥.

Final Answer:
if the candidate is to be selected