Eligibility Decision — Marketing Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (Marketing Officer/Deputy Manager): • PG in Marketing (degree/diploma) with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant Marketing experience ≥ 3 years. • If all criteria met → Select. • If any core criterion is clearly below threshold → Not to be selected. • If critical information is missing/ambiguous → Data inadequate. Candidate: Varun Malhotra — Born 3 July 1976; Deputy Marketing Manager for past 3 years; PG (Marketing) 65%; Graduation 55%; Selection process 55%. Determine the decision code.

Introduction / Context:
This verbal reasoning “eligibility test” item simulates HR screening using a defined policy. You must translate narrative data into structured checks, apply explicit thresholds, and conclude with the correct decision label. The goal is to demonstrate consistent policy application rather than subjective judgment.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Policy (Marketing): PG in Marketing ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection score ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 3 years in Marketing.
• Decision mapping: all met → Select; clear shortfall in any core criterion → Not selected; missing/ambiguous info → Data inadequate; special escalation (e.g., “refer to VP”) only if policy explicitly requires it (not the case here).
• Candidate record is complete and unambiguous.

Concept / Approach:
Normalize the narrative into checkpoints and evaluate each checkpoint against the threshold. Use a deterministic sequence: Education (PG) → Education (Graduation) → Selection score → Relevant experience → Final decision mapping. Avoid implicit assumptions beyond the policy and the data provided.

Step-by-Step Solution:
PG in Marketing: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 55% ≥ 55% → Pass (meets minimum exactly).Selection process: 55% ≥ 50% → Pass.Relevant experience: 3 years as Deputy Marketing Manager ≥ 3 years → Pass.All four core criteria satisfied → Decision = Select.

Verification / Alternative check:
Edge cases include “exactly at cutoff” (e.g., 55% graduation). The policy uses ≥ (“at least”), so equality satisfies the rule. No contradictory dates or fields are present; no escalation clause is triggered.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
“Not to be selected” would require a shortfall; none exists. “Data inadequate” would require missing/ambiguous information; none is missing. “Refer to Vice President marketing” requires an escalation rule; the policy above does not define one for this scenario.

Common Pitfalls:
Penalizing a candidate who is exactly at a cutoff; misreading “Deputy Marketing Manager” as non-marketing experience; conflating overall percentage with component thresholds. Always adhere to stated cutoffs and role relevance.

Final Answer:
if the candidate is to be selected