Difficulty: Medium
Correct Answer: Both I and II follow
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Recruitment reasoning questions often probe the reliability of selection mechanisms. Here, the statement concedes that an interview panel may choose an unsuitable candidate (lacking both qualifications and values). We test two conclusions: I) Having specialists on the panel does not guarantee a proper selection. II) The interview test has limitations in selecting candidates.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:If a process can yield a wrong outcome, then the presence of expertise does not make correctness guaranteed. Also, an admission that an interview may select an unsuitable candidate directly indicates that the interview method has limits in predicting fit.
Step-by-Step Solution:
From the statement: “may select” an unqualified candidate —> there is non-zero failure probability.Conclusion I: Specialists do not ensure correctness every time. This follows from the observed fallibility.Conclusion II: The interview has limitations. If unsuitable candidates can be selected, the method is not perfectly reliable—this follows as well.Verification / Alternative check:
Consider perfect guarantees: If interviews with specialists guaranteed proper selection, the described error would be impossible. Since the error is possible, both conclusions stand.Why Other Options Are Wrong:
A or B alone ignores one of the clear implications.C: “Either” is wrong since both follow.D: Denying both contradicts the core statement.Common Pitfalls:
Treating expert presence as infallible; confusing “best practice” with “guarantee.”Final Answer:Both I and II follow
Discussion & Comments