Difficulty: Easy
Correct Answer: If both the conclusion I and II follow
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:
The statement establishes a conditional waiver: outstanding candidates may have the usual requirement (prior social-work experience) waived. This has direct implications for the composition of the admitted cohort with respect to experience status.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:
If a rule allows a waiver for a subset, then logically some admitted students can lack the waived attribute (here, prior experience). Simultaneously, because the rule still exists for non-waived applicants, some admitted candidates will have the experience. Hence both conclusions follow.
Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Identify two pathways to admission: with-experience (rule) and without-experience (waiver for outstanding).2) Therefore, I follows: some students with prior experience.3) Therefore, II follows: some students without prior experience (via waiver).
Verification / Alternative check:
Even if many are waived, at least some non-waived will have experience; conversely, the existence of the waiver creates the possibility of admission without experience. The statement’s very purpose is to allow both categories.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only-I or Only-II ignores one side of the explicit policy design; “neither” contradicts the waiver language.
Common Pitfalls:
Reading “may be waived” as “will never be applied” or as “applies to everyone,” both of which are misinterpretations.
Final Answer:
If both the conclusion I and II follow.
Discussion & Comments