Q: Eligibility Decision — Marketing Profile (self-contained policy + candidate; minor text repair applied) Policy (Marketing Officer/Deputy Manager): • PG in Marketing (degree/diploma) with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 5…

Introduction / Context: This item includes a minor transcription defect (“He has secured 50% marks in the past seven years in the Marketing Division...”). Applying the Recovery-First Policy, we minimally repair the stem to restore solvability: interpret the dangling “secured 50%” as the selection score, while keeping all substantive data intact. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy thresholds (Marketing): PG ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 3 years. Repaired assumption: selection score = 50% (consistent with similar items and phrasing). All other fields are explicit and consistent. Concept / Approach: After minimal repair, apply the policy deterministically. Any single failure would disqualify; otherwise, the candidate is selected. Step-by-Step Solution: PG in Marketing: 62% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 58% ≥ 55% → Pass.Selection process: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: 7 years in Marketing ≥ 3 years → Pass.All checks satisfied → Decision = Select. Verification / Alternative check: Had the “50%” referred to graduation or PG, the given explicit percentages (58% graduation; 62% PG) already exceed minima; therefore the only plausible dangling field is selection. The minimal repair preserves intent and yields a single, non-contradictory interpretation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Not to be selected” would require a shortfall; none exists. “Data inadequate” is unnecessary because a single reasonable repair restores completeness. “Refer to VP marketing” is not an available rule in this policy. Common Pitfalls: Over-repairing the stem (adding new facts) instead of minimally clarifying the existing fragment; treating an exact-cutoff score as a fail when the policy uses ≥. Final Answer: if the candidate is to be selected

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Introduction / Context: HR eligibility questions emphasize strict adherence to basic minima across education, selection performance, and relevant tenure. A single failure ordinarily controls the outcome unless an explicit waiver exists. Given Data / Assumptions: HR thresholds: PG (HR) ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Escalation clause is not specified for borderline cases; thus, shortfalls lead to “not to be selected.” All critical fields are present. Concept / Approach: Evaluate education → selection → experience. Graduation minimums are independent constraints and cannot be offset by higher PG percentages unless a policy says so. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 62% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 50% < 55% → Fail (core minimum not met).Selection: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass, but fail already occurred.Experience: 5 years ≥ 5 years → Pass, but prior fail controls.Outcome → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even with strong PG and adequate experience, independent graduation minima must be satisfied. Without an explicit relaxation mechanism, failure at graduation is decisive. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the graduation shortfall. “Information inadequate” is incorrect because no data are missing. “Refer to Director-Personnel” would require a stated escalation rule or exceptional-seniority trigger that is absent here. Common Pitfalls: Assuming vertical compensation (higher PG substitutes for lower graduation). Unless written, do not infer compensatory policies. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Introduction / Context: Some HR policies differentiate senior cases for approval routing even when all basic thresholds are satisfied. This tests your ability to detect when a candidate should be escalated for senior review rather than directly selected. Given Data / Assumptions: Core minima: PG (HR) ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Escalation rule (stated above for this self-contained item): if experience ≥ 10 years and all minima are met, refer to Director-Personnel for senior-grade approval rather than issuing a direct selection verdict. Arun Vohra: 11 years experience; PG 65%; Graduation 55%; Selection 50%. Concept / Approach: First validate all minima. If they pass, check the seniority escalation condition. If satisfied, the correct label is the referral option, not “to be selected.” Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 55% ≥ 55% → Pass.Selection: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass.Experience: 11 years ≥ 10 years → Triggers senior referral route.Decision: Refer to Director-Personnel. Verification / Alternative check: No shortfalls exist; therefore “not to be selected” is incorrect. The only nuance is routing due to senior tenure, which the policy explicitly defines here for solvability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” skips the specified escalation path; “information inadequate” is false (data complete); “not to be selected” contradicts the passes on all thresholds. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring escalation cues when all minima pass; failing to recognize that process routing, not eligibility failure, is being tested. Final Answer: if the case is to be referred to the Director-Personnel

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Introduction / Context: This case is a straightforward application of minima without any escalation trigger. It checks whether you can recognize a fully qualified profile and choose the direct selection label. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Referral applies only when experience ≥ 10 years with all minima met (not the case here). All data fields are present and clear. Concept / Approach: Systematically validate each criterion; if all pass and no senior referral rule applies, select. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 60% → meets cutoff (≥ 60%).Graduation: 55% → meets cutoff.Selection: 55% → meets cutoff.Experience: 6 years → meets ≥ 5 years.No senior-referral condition (experience < 10 years). → Decision = Select. Verification / Alternative check: All thresholds are satisfied without edge ambiguity. Therefore, any answer other than “to be selected” would contradict the policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Not to be selected” requires a shortfall (none). “Information inadequate” would require missing/uncertain data (none). “Refer to Director-Personnel” requires ≥ 10 years experience (not met). Common Pitfalls: Overlooking the equality-at-cutoff rule; incorrectly invoking referral with only 6 years of experience. Final Answer: if the candidate is to be selected

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Introduction / Context: This profile features two potential issues: a low graduation percentage and insufficient tenure. Either one would be disqualifying under independent minima. The exercise reinforces the “no compensation” principle unless a waiver is written. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: Graduation 50% (below 55%); Experience 4 years (below 5 years) despite strong PG (68%) and acceptable selection (50%). No waiver or referral-for-deficit is defined. Concept / Approach: Check each threshold independently; any failure results in “not to be selected.” A strong PG result cannot offset deficits in graduation percentage or experience unless explicitly allowed. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 68% → Pass.Graduation: 50% → Fail (cutoff 55%).Selection: 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: 4 years → Fail (cutoff 5 years).Two independent failures → Decision = Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if tenure were rounded, the graduation shortfall stands. Policy requires “≥” not “near,” and the candidate does not meet the minimums. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” contradicts two shortfalls. “Information inadequate” is false; all fields are specified. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is for senior approval, not deficit waivers. Common Pitfalls: Confusing rank/title (Deputy Manager) with eligibility minima; titles do not override baseline thresholds unless a separate rule exists. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Introduction / Context: High academic scores and adequate tenure cannot offset a failure on a required selection cutoff when the policy uses independent minima. This question emphasizes that selection performance is a gate. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: Graduation 80% (pass); PG 62% (pass); Experience 7 years (pass); Selection 48% (fail). Concept / Approach: Evaluate each requirement independently; a fail on selection score results in immediate ineligibility absent a defined waiver. Step-by-Step Solution: Graduation: 80% → Pass.PG HR: 62% → Pass.Experience: 7 years → Pass.Selection: 48% < 50% → Fail.Outcome → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the interview component were strong, the stated composite threshold is 50%. Without a policy clause for conditional referrals at 48–49%, the only consistent result is rejection. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the selection fail. “Information inadequate” does not apply; all numbers are given. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is for senior approvals, not sub-threshold remediation. Common Pitfalls: Believing exceptional academics can substitute for selection performance; they cannot unless explicitly written. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Introduction / Context: This case features multiple deficits. When independent minima govern, any single deficit is disqualifying; multiple deficits only reinforce the decision. The exercise checks careful reading and threshold comparison. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: Graduation 52% (fail); Selection 44% (fail); PG 64% (pass); Experience 5 years (meets minimum). Concept / Approach: Apply the rule “all minima must be satisfied.” Since two criteria are below cutoff, the outcome must be negative regardless of the strong PG mark or adequate tenure. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 64% → Pass.Graduation: 52% < 55% → Fail.Selection: 44% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 5 years ≥ 5 years → Pass, but prior fails control.Decision → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the experience slightly exceeded 5 years, the education/selection shortfalls remain decisive in a minima-based policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” conflicts with two fails. “Information inadequate” is incorrect because all inputs are present. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is intended for senior approvals, not remedial consideration for sub-minimum cases. Common Pitfalls: Letting strong PG overshadow weak graduation marks; assuming tenure compensates for a very low selection score. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Q: Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate) Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50% (explicit figure required). • Rele…

Introduction / Context: This “eligibility test” item checks whether you enforce a policy exactly as written, especially when a critical metric is missing. In HR screening puzzles, missing values are not to be guessed; they lead to a disciplined “information inadequate” outcome. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50% (must be stated); Experience ≥ 5 years. Decision mapping: all met → Select; any shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Information inadequate; ≥ 10 years with all minima → Refer to Director-Personnel. Candidate: Graduation 55% (meets); PG 65% (meets); Experience 6 years (meets); Selection score — not provided. Concept / Approach: Convert narrative to a checklist. A single missing mandatory field prevents a definitive decision. Do not infer or borrow values from context; stick to the explicit data. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 55% ≥ 55% → Pass.Experience: 6 years ≥ 5 years → Pass.Selection score: Not stated → Missing critical figure.Decision mapping → Information inadequate. Verification / Alternative check: If the selection score were ≥ 50%, the outcome would be “to be selected” (no senior referral since experience < 10). If it were < 50%, the outcome would be “not to be selected.” Because it is not stated, neither branch is justified. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” or “not to be selected” presume a value we do not have. “Refer to Director-Personnel” requires ≥ 10 years experience and all minima met; tenure is only 6 years. Common Pitfalls: Inventing a number; treating “meets most” as sufficient; forgetting that equality at a cutoff (≥) is acceptable only when the figure is known. Final Answer: if the information provided is inadequat to take a decision

Question 1

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 ex…

Accepted Answer

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

Question 2

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 ex…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Eligibility puzzles require converting text into rules and applying them consistently. Here, a marketing candidate must meet minimum educational percentages, a selection test cutoff, and a minimum tenure in a relevant domain. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 3 years (Marketing). No stated age ceiling or discretionary escalation. All values are explicit; no missing fields. Concept / Approach: Evaluate each threshold. Any single failure implies “not to be selected.” If all pass, choose “to be selected.” “Data inadequate” is reserved for missing/unclear data only. Step-by-Step Solution: PG (Marketing): 60% → meets ≥ 60% (edge equality passes).Graduation: 60% → ≥ 55% (passes comfortably).Selection process: 80% → ≥ 50% (passes).Experience: 6 years in Marketing → ≥ 3 years (passes).All conditions satisfied → Select. Verification / Alternative check: Consider whether any hidden constraint (e.g., maximum age) could apply. None is specified within this self-contained policy; therefore, the four explicit checks control the outcome. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Not to be selected” would require a failing criterion — none exists. “Data inadequate” is inapplicable because all key fields are given. “Refer to Vice President marketing” is not triggered in the policy. Common Pitfalls: Misinterpreting “exactly 60%” as failing a “> 60%” requirement; the policy clearly uses ≥. Also, overlooking that the experience must be in Marketing specifically (it is). Final Answer: if the candidate is to be selected

Question 3

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 ex…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: In policy-based screening, a single failure on a core threshold typically disqualifies the candidate unless an explicit relaxation or referral clause exists. This question tests strict adherence to minimum criteria. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy thresholds (Marketing): PG ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 3 years. No relaxation or referral-to-VP rule is specified; therefore, shortfalls lead directly to “not to be selected.” All data fields are present and unambiguous. Concept / Approach: Check each criterion in sequence and stop at the first failure. If any core criterion is below the stated minimum, the final outcome is “not to be selected.” Step-by-Step Solution: PG in Marketing: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 50% < 55% → Fail (core education threshold).Selection: 50% ≥ 50% → Would pass, but prior failure controls.Experience: 6 years ≥ 3 years → Would pass, but prior failure controls.Since Graduation is below the minimum, decision → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if later criteria are strong (e.g., PG 65% and 6 years experience), a policy with independent minima requires all to be satisfied. No compensatory mechanism is defined. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the graduation shortfall. “Data inadequate” is incorrect as all values are present. “Refer to VP marketing” is not a defined remediation in this policy. Common Pitfalls: Assuming higher PG marks can compensate for low graduation percentage; unless explicitly allowed, compensation is not permitted. Always respect independent minima. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 4

Eligibility Decision — Marketing Profile (self-contained policy + candidate; minor text repair applied)  Policy (Marketing Officer/Deputy Manager): • PG in Marketing (degree/diploma) with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 5…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item includes a minor transcription defect (“He has secured 50% marks in the past seven years in the Marketing Division...”). Applying the Recovery-First Policy, we minimally repair the stem to restore solvability: interpret the dangling “secured 50%” as the selection score, while keeping all substantive data intact. Given Data / Assumptions: Policy thresholds (Marketing): PG ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 3 years. Repaired assumption: selection score = 50% (consistent with similar items and phrasing). All other fields are explicit and consistent. Concept / Approach: After minimal repair, apply the policy deterministically. Any single failure would disqualify; otherwise, the candidate is selected. Step-by-Step Solution: PG in Marketing: 62% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 58% ≥ 55% → Pass.Selection process: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: 7 years in Marketing ≥ 3 years → Pass.All checks satisfied → Decision = Select. Verification / Alternative check: Had the “50%” referred to graduation or PG, the given explicit percentages (58% graduation; 62% PG) already exceed minima; therefore the only plausible dangling field is selection. The minimal repair preserves intent and yields a single, non-contradictory interpretation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Not to be selected” would require a shortfall; none exists. “Data inadequate” is unnecessary because a single reasonable repair restores completeness. “Refer to VP marketing” is not an available rule in this policy. Common Pitfalls: Over-repairing the stem (adding new facts) instead of minimally clarifying the existing fragment; treating an exact-cutoff score as a fail when the policy uses ≥. Final Answer: if the candidate is to be selected

Question 5

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: HR eligibility questions emphasize strict adherence to basic minima across education, selection performance, and relevant tenure. A single failure ordinarily controls the outcome unless an explicit waiver exists. Given Data / Assumptions: HR thresholds: PG (HR) ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Escalation clause is not specified for borderline cases; thus, shortfalls lead to “not to be selected.” All critical fields are present. Concept / Approach: Evaluate education → selection → experience. Graduation minimums are independent constraints and cannot be offset by higher PG percentages unless a policy says so. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 62% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 50% < 55% → Fail (core minimum not met).Selection: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass, but fail already occurred.Experience: 5 years ≥ 5 years → Pass, but prior fail controls.Outcome → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even with strong PG and adequate experience, independent graduation minima must be satisfied. Without an explicit relaxation mechanism, failure at graduation is decisive. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the graduation shortfall. “Information inadequate” is incorrect because no data are missing. “Refer to Director-Personnel” would require a stated escalation rule or exceptional-seniority trigger that is absent here. Common Pitfalls: Assuming vertical compensation (higher PG substitutes for lower graduation). Unless written, do not infer compensatory policies. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 6

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Some HR policies differentiate senior cases for approval routing even when all basic thresholds are satisfied. This tests your ability to detect when a candidate should be escalated for senior review rather than directly selected. Given Data / Assumptions: Core minima: PG (HR) ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Escalation rule (stated above for this self-contained item): if experience ≥ 10 years and all minima are met, refer to Director-Personnel for senior-grade approval rather than issuing a direct selection verdict. Arun Vohra: 11 years experience; PG 65%; Graduation 55%; Selection 50%. Concept / Approach: First validate all minima. If they pass, check the seniority escalation condition. If satisfied, the correct label is the referral option, not “to be selected.” Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 55% ≥ 55% → Pass.Selection: 50% ≥ 50% → Pass.Experience: 11 years ≥ 10 years → Triggers senior referral route.Decision: Refer to Director-Personnel. Verification / Alternative check: No shortfalls exist; therefore “not to be selected” is incorrect. The only nuance is routing due to senior tenure, which the policy explicitly defines here for solvability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” skips the specified escalation path; “information inadequate” is false (data complete); “not to be selected” contradicts the passes on all thresholds. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring escalation cues when all minima pass; failing to recognize that process routing, not eligibility failure, is being tested. Final Answer: if the case is to be referred to the Director-Personnel

Question 7

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This case is a straightforward application of minima without any escalation trigger. It checks whether you can recognize a fully qualified profile and choose the direct selection label. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Referral applies only when experience ≥ 10 years with all minima met (not the case here). All data fields are present and clear. Concept / Approach: Systematically validate each criterion; if all pass and no senior referral rule applies, select. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 60% → meets cutoff (≥ 60%).Graduation: 55% → meets cutoff.Selection: 55% → meets cutoff.Experience: 6 years → meets ≥ 5 years.No senior-referral condition (experience < 10 years). → Decision = Select. Verification / Alternative check: All thresholds are satisfied without edge ambiguity. Therefore, any answer other than “to be selected” would contradict the policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Not to be selected” requires a shortfall (none). “Information inadequate” would require missing/uncertain data (none). “Refer to Director-Personnel” requires ≥ 10 years experience (not met). Common Pitfalls: Overlooking the equality-at-cutoff rule; incorrectly invoking referral with only 6 years of experience. Final Answer: if the candidate is to be selected

Question 8

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This profile features two potential issues: a low graduation percentage and insufficient tenure. Either one would be disqualifying under independent minima. The exercise reinforces the “no compensation” principle unless a waiver is written. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: Graduation 50% (below 55%); Experience 4 years (below 5 years) despite strong PG (68%) and acceptable selection (50%). No waiver or referral-for-deficit is defined. Concept / Approach: Check each threshold independently; any failure results in “not to be selected.” A strong PG result cannot offset deficits in graduation percentage or experience unless explicitly allowed. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 68% → Pass.Graduation: 50% → Fail (cutoff 55%).Selection: 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: 4 years → Fail (cutoff 5 years).Two independent failures → Decision = Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if tenure were rounded, the graduation shortfall stands. Policy requires “≥” not “near,” and the candidate does not meet the minimums. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” contradicts two shortfalls. “Information inadequate” is false; all fields are specified. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is for senior approval, not deficit waivers. Common Pitfalls: Confusing rank/title (Deputy Manager) with eligibility minima; titles do not override baseline thresholds unless a separate rule exists. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 9

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: High academic scores and adequate tenure cannot offset a failure on a required selection cutoff when the policy uses independent minima. This question emphasizes that selection performance is a gate. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: Graduation 80% (pass); PG 62% (pass); Experience 7 years (pass); Selection 48% (fail). Concept / Approach: Evaluate each requirement independently; a fail on selection score results in immediate ineligibility absent a defined waiver. Step-by-Step Solution: Graduation: 80% → Pass.PG HR: 62% → Pass.Experience: 7 years → Pass.Selection: 48% < 50% → Fail.Outcome → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the interview component were strong, the stated composite threshold is 50%. Without a policy clause for conditional referrals at 48–49%, the only consistent result is rejection. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the selection fail. “Information inadequate” does not apply; all numbers are given. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is for senior approvals, not sub-threshold remediation. Common Pitfalls: Believing exceptional academics can substitute for selection performance; they cannot unless explicitly written. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 10

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This case features multiple deficits. When independent minima govern, any single deficit is disqualifying; multiple deficits only reinforce the decision. The exercise checks careful reading and threshold comparison. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: Graduation 52% (fail); Selection 44% (fail); PG 64% (pass); Experience 5 years (meets minimum). Concept / Approach: Apply the rule “all minima must be satisfied.” Since two criteria are below cutoff, the outcome must be negative regardless of the strong PG mark or adequate tenure. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 64% → Pass.Graduation: 52% < 55% → Fail.Selection: 44% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 5 years ≥ 5 years → Pass, but prior fails control.Decision → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if the experience slightly exceeded 5 years, the education/selection shortfalls remain decisive in a minima-based policy. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” conflicts with two fails. “Information inadequate” is incorrect because all inputs are present. “Refer to Director-Personnel” is intended for senior approvals, not remedial consideration for sub-minimum cases. Common Pitfalls: Letting strong PG overshadow weak graduation marks; assuming tenure compensates for a very low selection score. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 11

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50% (explicit figure required). • Rele…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This “eligibility test” item checks whether you enforce a policy exactly as written, especially when a critical metric is missing. In HR screening puzzles, missing values are not to be guessed; they lead to a disciplined “information inadequate” outcome. Given Data / Assumptions: Thresholds: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50% (must be stated); Experience ≥ 5 years. Decision mapping: all met → Select; any shortfall → Not to be selected; missing critical data → Information inadequate; ≥ 10 years with all minima → Refer to Director-Personnel. Candidate: Graduation 55% (meets); PG 65% (meets); Experience 6 years (meets); Selection score — not provided. Concept / Approach: Convert narrative to a checklist. A single missing mandatory field prevents a definitive decision. Do not infer or borrow values from context; stick to the explicit data. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 65% ≥ 60% → Pass.Graduation: 55% ≥ 55% → Pass.Experience: 6 years ≥ 5 years → Pass.Selection score: Not stated → Missing critical figure.Decision mapping → Information inadequate. Verification / Alternative check: If the selection score were ≥ 50%, the outcome would be “to be selected” (no senior referral since experience < 10). If it were < 50%, the outcome would be “not to be selected.” Because it is not stated, neither branch is justified. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” or “not to be selected” presume a value we do not have. “Refer to Director-Personnel” requires ≥ 10 years experience and all minima met; tenure is only 6 years. Common Pitfalls: Inventing a number; treating “meets most” as sufficient; forgetting that equality at a cutoff (≥) is acceptable only when the figure is known. Final Answer: if the information provided is inadequat to take a decision

Question 12

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This item tests strict compliance with independent minima. Even strong academic credentials and an HR designation cannot offset a failure in the selection score when the rule demands ≥ 50%. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: PG 67% (pass), Graduation 60% (pass), Selection 45% (fail), Experience 4 years (fail). Concept / Approach: Evaluate each requirement independently. A single failure is decisive. Here there are two deficits (selection and tenure), so the decision is clear. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 67% → Pass.Graduation: 60% → Pass.Selection: 45% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 4 years < 5 years → Fail.Outcome → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: If either deficit were cured, the other would still block eligibility. No senior referral applies without ≥ 10 years and all minima satisfied. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” contradicts failures. “Information inadequate” is wrong because all figures are provided. “Refer to Director-Personnel” needs ≥ 10 years experience and no deficits. Common Pitfalls: Assuming a senior title implies a waiver; assuming a high PG compensates for low selection marks; overlooking the tenure requirement. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 13

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate; ambiguous text clarified)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relev…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Applying the Recovery-First Policy, we minimally interpret the compressed phrase “in both graduation selection process” to mean graduation = 45% and selection = 45%. With that repair, we can evaluate the profile deterministically against the minima. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: PG 65% (pass); Graduation 45% (fail); Selection 45% (fail); Experience 6 years (pass). Concept / Approach: Independent minima must all be met; any shortfall disqualifies unless an explicit waiver is provided. Step-by-Step Solution: PG HR: 65% → Pass.Graduation: 45% → Fail.Selection: 45% → Fail.Experience: 6 years → Pass.Result controlled by failures → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if one fail were corrected, the other would remain decisive. No escalation to Director-Personnel applies because minima are not satisfied. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores two fails. “Information inadequate” would apply only if a necessary field were missing; here, minimal repair provides both values. “Refer to Director-Personnel” requires no deficits and ≥ 10 years. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking that two separate minima (graduation and selection) must be satisfied; assuming experience can compensate — it cannot under independent minima. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 14

Eligibility Decision — HR/Personnel Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (HR/Personnel roles): • PG degree/diploma in HR/Personnel with ≥ 60%. • Graduation with ≥ 55%. • Selection process score ≥ 50%. • Relevant HR/Personnel experienc…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Beyond basic eligibility, some processes route senior profiles for higher-level approval when tenure crosses a threshold. This item checks that you recognize escalation triggers rather than issuing a direct selection. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: PG HR ≥ 60%; Graduation ≥ 55%; Selection ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Senior referral: Experience ≥ 10 years with all minima satisfied → Refer to Director-Personnel. Candidate: Graduation 60%, PG 70%, Selection 60%, Experience 11 years → all minima met and seniority threshold reached. Concept / Approach: Validate minima; if satisfied, check for senior referral conditions. Do not confuse “eligible” with “directly select” when the process prescribes an approval route. Step-by-Step Solution: Graduation: 60% → Pass.PG HR: 70% → Pass.Selection: 60% → Pass.Experience: 11 years ≥ 10 years → Senior referral applies.Decision: Refer to Director-Personnel. Verification / Alternative check: All minima are met; thus “not to be selected” is wrong. Without the escalation rule, one would select; with it, referral is the correct label. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the mandated senior-approval channel. “Information inadequate” is false (complete data). “Not to be selected” contradicts minima. Common Pitfalls: Overlooking process routing; thinking seniority merely “nice to note” rather than procedurally binding. Final Answer: if the case is to be referred to the Director-Personnel

Question 15

Eligibility Decision — Systems/IT Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (Systems/IT roles): • Degree requirement: BE in CS/IT/Electronics (or equivalent) with ≥ 60% (PG like ME acceptable but does not waive BE unless stated). • Selecti…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Systems/IT screening often demands separate minimums for the written test and the interview. This question verifies that you check both independently and do not allow one to compensate for the other. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: BE ≥ 60%; Written ≥ 50%; Interview ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Referral: ≥ 10 years experience with all minima → GM - Systems. Candidate: BE 70% (pass); Written 55% (pass); Interview 45% (fail); Experience 7 years (pass but not senior-referral level). Concept / Approach: Treat written and interview as separate gates. A single sub-50 score is disqualifying absent a specific waiver rule. Step-by-Step Solution: Degree: 70% → Pass.Written test: 55% ≥ 50% → Pass.Interview: 45% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 7 years ≥ 5 → Adequate, but failure already decisive.Decision → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even with 10+ years of experience, referral requires all minima met; here, the interview deficit blocks referral. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” ignores the interview fail. “Refer to DGM/GM” requires passing minima first. There is no “information inadequate” issue. Common Pitfalls: Letting a strong written score overshadow a weak interview; conflating senior title with automatic clearance. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 16

Eligibility Decision — Systems/IT Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (Systems/IT roles): • BE in CS/IT/Electronics (or equivalent) with ≥ 60% (PG does not waive BE unless stated). • Selection written ≥ 50% and interview ≥ 50%. • Rel…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Even when academic credentials and tenure are strong, selection-stage minimums are hard gates. This profile demonstrates a written-test deficiency that cannot be offset by other strengths. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: BE ≥ 60%; Written ≥ 50%; Interview ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: BE 62% (pass); Interview 55% (pass); Written 45% (fail); Experience ≫ 5 years (since 1999). Concept / Approach: Apply independent minima: failure in any one criterion implies “not to be selected.” Senior referral to GM-Systems is only available after satisfying all minima. Step-by-Step Solution: Degree: 62% → Pass.Interview: 55% → Pass.Written: 45% < 50% → Fail.Experience: Very high → Irrelevant once a gate fails.Decision → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if a policy had senior routing, routing presupposes minimums are met. Here, they are not. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “To be selected” contradicts the fail. “Refer to DGM/GM” requires meeting all minima, which is not the case. Common Pitfalls: Assuming long experience overrides a failed gate; it does not in a minima-driven process. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 17

Eligibility Decision — Systems/IT Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (Systems/IT roles): • BE in CS/IT/Electronics (or equivalent) with ≥ 60% (PG such as ME desirable but BE minimum still applies unless waived; not needed here). • S…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This case contains two potential blockers: a sub-60 BE score and a sub-50 written test. Even with an excellent ME and long tenure, independent minima must be respected unless a waiver is explicitly written. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: BE ≥ 60%; Written ≥ 50%; Interview ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: BE 58% (fail); ME 72% (strong but does not waive BE minimum unless stated); Interview 56% (pass); Written 45% (fail); Experience 11 years (senior). Concept / Approach: Apply independent gates: any single fail implies ineligibility. Senior referral requires all minima to be satisfied; deficits block routing. Step-by-Step Solution: BE: 58% < 60% → Fail.Interview: 56% ≥ 50% → Pass.Written: 45% < 50% → Fail.Experience: 11 years → Senior, but referral precondition not met.Decision → Not to be selected. Verification / Alternative check: Even if a waiver allowed substituting ME for BE, the written-test failure alone is decisive; thus the final label remains negative. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Select” contradicts fails. “Refer to DGM/GM” requires meeting minima, which is not satisfied. Data are complete, so “information inadequate” does not apply. Common Pitfalls: Letting higher PG override required UG minima; ignoring separate written and interview cutoffs. Final Answer: if the candidate is not to be selected

Question 18

Eligibility Decision — Systems/IT Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (Systems/IT roles): • BE in CS/IT/Electronics (or equivalent) with ≥ 60%. • Selection written ≥ 50% and interview ≥ 50%. • Relevant Systems/IT experience ≥ 5 years…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: When all minima are satisfied and tenure is well beyond the senior threshold, the correct outcome is referral to the designated senior approver rather than a direct selection. This item tests recognition of that routing rule. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: BE ≥ 60%; Written ≥ 50%; Interview ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Senior referral: Experience ≥ 10 years with all minima met → GM - Systems. Candidate: BE 65% (pass); Written 50% (meets exactly); Interview 50% (meets exactly); Experience ≫ 10 years (since 1999). Concept / Approach: Confirm each gate, then apply the referral criterion. Equality at cutoffs is acceptable under ≥. Step-by-Step Solution: BE: 65% → Pass.Written: 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Interview: 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: ≥ 10 years → Senior referral condition satisfied.Decision: Refer to GM - Systems. Verification / Alternative check: Had either written or interview been below 50%, the decision would be “not to be selected.” With all minima met and long tenure, referral is mandatory. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Select” skips the mandated referral; “not to be selected” contradicts the passes; “refer to DGM - System” is a lower level not specified as the senior approver here. Common Pitfalls: Forgetting that ≥ includes equality; defaulting to “select” and ignoring process routing. Final Answer: if the case is to be referred to the GM - Systems

Question 19

Eligibility Decision — Systems/IT Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (Systems/IT roles): • BE in CS/IT/Electronics (or equivalent) with ≥ 60%. • Selection written ≥ 50% and interview ≥ 50%. • Relevant Systems/IT experience ≥ 5 years…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: All independent minima are clearly satisfied, and tenure is above the basic threshold but below the senior-referral trigger. Therefore, the correct label is the direct selection outcome. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima: BE ≥ 60%; Written ≥ 50%; Interview ≥ 50%; Experience ≥ 5 years. Candidate: BE 75% (pass); Written 60% (pass); Interview 60% (pass); Experience 6 years (≥ 5 but < 10 → no GM referral). Concept / Approach: Check each gate; with all met and tenure < 10 years, select directly. Step-by-Step Solution: BE: 75% → Pass.Written: 60% → Pass.Interview: 60% → Pass.Experience: 6 years → Meets minimum; senior referral not triggered.Decision: To be selected. Verification / Alternative check: No missing or borderline values exist; equality rules are not even required here as all exceed minima comfortably. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Not to be selected” contradicts the passes. “Refer to DGM/GM” requires either a stated intermediate route (not given) or ≥ 10 years experience plus all minima (not the case). Common Pitfalls: Over-applying referral logic when senior tenure condition is not met. Final Answer: if the candidate is to be selected

Question 20

Eligibility Decision — Banking/Advances Profile (self-contained policy + candidate)  Policy (Banking — Advances role): • Graduation (Commerce/Finance or equivalent) with ≥ 60%. • Group Discussion ≥ 50% and Interview ≥ 50% (both required). • Relevant…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: This banking eligibility puzzle mirrors the structure of earlier domains but adapts the approver. When a candidate satisfies all minima and exceeds the seniority threshold, the file is routed to the functional GM rather than concluded as a direct hire. Given Data / Assumptions: Minima (Advances): Graduation ≥ 60%; Group Discussion ≥ 50%; Interview ≥ 50%; Banking experience ≥ 5 years. Senior routing: Experience ≥ 10 years with all minima → Refer to GM - Advances. Candidate: Graduation 70% (pass); GD 50% (meets exactly); Interview 50% (meets exactly); Experience 12 years (senior). Concept / Approach: Confirm each gate then apply the senior routing rule. Equality at a cutoff (≥) counts as a pass. Step-by-Step Solution: Graduation: 70% → Pass.Group Discussion: 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Interview: 50% → Pass (exact cutoff).Experience: 12 years ≥ 10 → Senior routing applies.Decision: Refer to General Manager - Advances. Verification / Alternative check: Nothing is missing; no score is below the minima. Escalating to GM - Advances is consistent with the role and tenure. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Executive Director” is a higher escalation not defined for this policy; “not to be selected” contradicts the passes; “data inadequate” is incorrect because all figures are present. Common Pitfalls: Assuming exact-cutoff values are insufficient; ignoring the routing rule and choosing “to be selected” instead of the designated senior approver. Final Answer: if the case is to be referred to the General Manager - Advances

Eligibility Test Questions