Given below are two statements Statement I: Reliability is a necessary but…

Concept: Reliability is the consistency of a measurement; validity is whether a tool truly measures the construct it claims to measure. In psychometrics, reliability is necessary but not sufficient for validity — an inconsistent tool cannot be valid, but consistency alone never proves validity. Validity itself is threatened by construct-irrelevant variance (something extra creeping into the score) or by construct underrepresentation (the tool falling short of the full construct), not by a tool cleanly measuring only what it is designed to measure.

Applying it here: Statement I restates the standard necessary-but-not-sufficient relationship correctly. Statement II, however, inverts the actual threat condition: a tool that measures only the construct it is designed to measure — with no contamination and no gaps — is functioning with intact validity, not with validity under threat. So Statement I holds and Statement II does not.

• Marking both statements as correct overstates Statement II — precise, exclusively-targeted measurement is what validity looks like when it holds, not a risk to it.

• Marking both statements as incorrect over-rejects Statement I — “necessary but not sufficient” is the standard, textbook relationship between reliability and validity, not a flawed claim.

• Marking Statement I as incorrect and Statement II as correct gets both judgments backwards, rejecting a well-established relationship while accepting an inverted description of what threatens validity.

Result: Hence Statement I is correct and Statement II is incorrect.