Data Sufficiency – Code Language Mapping Question: In a certain code language, what word does the code 'nip' represent? Statements: I. 'that is very beautiful' is coded as 'se nip sre num' II. 'my house is beautiful' is coded as 'nip sto sre tip'

Introduction / Context:
This is a classic Data Sufficiency problem about decoding a substitution code language. Each word in a sentence maps one-to-one to a distinct code token. We must determine whether the given statements provide enough information to identify exactly which English word corresponds to the code token 'nip'—without necessarily computing every mapping.

Given Data / Assumptions:

• Main question uses two independent statements.
• Statement I: 'that is very beautiful' → 'se nip sre num'
• Statement II: 'my house is beautiful' → 'nip sto sre tip'
• Assume a consistent one-to-one mapping within this problem's universe.

Concept / Approach:
In code problems, compare sentences to find common words and their common codes. If two sentences share exactly one common word, their code intersection reveals that word’s code. If they share two or more words and two or more codes, the mapping may remain ambiguous unless extra information breaks the tie.

Step-by-Step Solution:
From I: words = {that, is, very, beautiful}; codes = {se, nip, sre, num}. From II: words = {my, house, is, beautiful}; codes = {nip, sto, sre, tip}. Common words across I and II: {is, beautiful} (two words). Common codes across I and II: {nip, sre} (two codes). Therefore, {is, beautiful} maps to {nip, sre} in some order. Without further information, 'nip' could be either 'is' or 'beautiful'.

Verification / Alternative check:
Even if we combine Statements I and II, the intersection yields two common words and two common codes. No uniqueness arises. We cannot pinpoint which of the two words corresponds to 'nip'.

Why Other Options Are Wrong:
'I alone is sufficient' or 'II alone is sufficient': Each statement individually still leaves two possible words for 'nip'. 'Either I or II is sufficient': False, because neither alone resolves the ambiguity. 'Both I and II are sufficient': Even together, ambiguity persists.

Common Pitfalls:
Assuming alphabetical or positional hints in code tokens; such assumptions are not justified. Overlooking that two shared words lead to two shared codes, which is inherently ambiguous without a tie-breaker.

Final Answer:
Neither I nor II is sufficient