Statement:\n“We will not recruit as Research Team Members those persons who are below thirty years of age and do not have versatile qualities.” — Organization XYZ\nConclusions:\nI. Those who are selected will possess many different skills.\nII. Those who are selected will all be more than thirty years of age.

Introduction / Context:
The organization excludes candidates who are (a) below thirty and (b) lacking versatile qualities. We must parse the logical connective to test what necessarily follows about selected candidates.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Exclusion criterion combines two conditions with “and”.
• Versatile qualities are required if a candidate is to avoid exclusion when below 30.
• No explicit exclusion of all sub-30 candidates, regardless of versatility, is stated.

Concept / Approach:
Because the exclusion is triggered when both conditions are met, a below-30 candidate who does have versatile qualities is not excluded by the stated rule. Therefore, it is not necessary that all selected candidates must be over 30. However, since the rule disqualifies the non-versatile, it follows that those who are selected will indeed possess versatile (multiple) skills.

Step-by-Step Solution:
1) Conclusion I: Selection implies not falling in the “below 30 and not versatile” set, which entails versatility → I follows.2) Conclusion II: The connective allows some under-30 versatile candidates; thus, “all over 30” is not necessary → does not follow.

Verification / Alternative check:
If the statement had used “or” (below 30 or not versatile), then all selected would be 30+ and versatile; with “and,” such an inference is invalid.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Only II/Either/Neither: each mishandles the logical structure of the exclusion criterion.

Common Pitfalls:
Misreading “and” as “or”; assuming a strict age cutoff not stated.

Final Answer:
if only conclusion I follows