Prosecution of Dr. X for arson.

To prove the fire was set intentionally, the prosecution calls Mark, a police arson investigator who has served in that capacity for ten years after spending several years as a beat officer.

Mark never attended college and had no special schooling in arson investigation, but learned investigative techniques from a senior investigator with whom he worked for two years.

From techniques learned through this experience, Mark spoke with eyewitnesses who saw the fire at various stages, and concluded from that information as well as his own investigation of the fire scene that the fire was set intentionally.

Which of the following objections to Mark's testimony is the court likely to sustain, if either?

The court is likely to sustain both of these objections, correct?