Difficulty: Hard
Correct Answer: Both Statements I and II together are not sufficient.
Explanation:
Introduction / Context:Determine A's relationship to B from family-role statements. We must see if a unique relation (e.g., daughter, daughter-in-law, niece) can be fixed.
Given Data / Assumptions:
Concept / Approach:Enumerate family trees consistent with each statement; check if B's relation to A is unique.
Step-by-Step Solution:
From I: If C married B's son, then C's sister-in-law A could be (1) another daughter of B (i.e., the son's sister), or (2) the wife of C's brother (outside B's immediate family). Thus B could be A's mother (case 1) or not related by blood (case 2).From II: 'A's son's only uncle' could be A's brother (mother's side) or A's husband's brother (father's side). The uncle's son's mother is B. This allows multiple placements for B (B could be A's mother if the uncle is A's brother, or B could be A's mother-in-law if the uncle is husband's brother whose mother is B, etc.).Combining I and II still leaves multiple consistent configurations (mother vs mother-in-law vs aunt by marriage) without contradiction.Verification / Alternative check:Attempting to fix genders and unique siblings still yields several valid trees; no single relation is forced.
Why Other Options Are Wrong:
Common Pitfalls:Assuming 'sister-in-law' only means spouse's sister; it can also mean sibling's wife. Also, interpreting 'only uncle' as maternal-only or paternal-only without basis.
Final Answer:Both Statements I and II together are not sufficient.
Discussion & Comments