Statement — An interview panel may select a student who lacks both the desired-level abilities and the expected values/assumptions. Question — What conclusions about the interview process follow?

Introduction / Context:
The stem asserts a failure case: panels can pick applicants lacking required ability and values. We must reason about what this implies for (I) the sufficiency of including “experts,” and (II) the limitations of interviews as a selection method.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• An interview process produced an unsatisfactory selection.
• Panels (even with experts) are not error-free.
• No evidence is provided that the method always succeeds.

Concept / Approach:
One counterexample is sufficient to refute claims of guaranteed correctness. If a panel can err, then “experts guarantee proper selection” is false, and the procedure has limitations.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Even with training and structure, interviews show variance and bias; a single documented mis-selection proves non-guarantee.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

Common Pitfalls:
Confusing “experts present” with “infallible.”

Final Answer:
if both I and II follows