Java (instanceof legality) — which two statements could be legally inserted where indicated?\n\n/* Candidate lines: \n1) boolean test = (Component instanceof t);\n2) boolean test = (t instanceof Ticker);\n3) boolean test = t.instanceof(Ticker);\n4) boolean test = (t instanceof Component);\n*/\n\nimport java.awt.;\nclass Ticker extends Component \n{\n public static void main (String [] args) \n {\n Ticker t = new Ticker();\n / Missing Statements? */\n }\n}\n\nPick the pair that is syntactically valid in Java.

Introduction / Context:
The instanceof operator tests whether a reference refers to an instance compatible with a given type. This question focuses on syntax correctness and type positions around instanceof, not on the runtime result.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Ticker extends Component (java.awt.Component).
• t is a Ticker instance in scope.
• We check which proposed lines compile legally.

Concept / Approach:
The left operand of instanceof must be a reference expression; the right operand must be a type. The operator itself is a keyword, not a method. Supertype/superclass relationships make both t instanceof Ticker and t instanceof Component legal.

Step-by-Step Solution:

Verification / Alternative check:
Compiling with lines 2 and 4 produces booleans; running would yield true for both with a fresh Ticker.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:

• Options including 1 or 3 contain syntactic misuse of instanceof.

Common Pitfalls:
Attempting to put a class type on the left-hand side or treating instanceof like a method call.

Final Answer:
2 and 4