This question is relatively straightforward

St 1

Every factor of s in also a factor of r- this means that every factor of s must be a factor of r- so in other words s must be the same size as r -neither can be larger

St 2

2 x3 /3 x 2 x 2 this satisfies the condition but is obviously not an integer so insufficient

A

For statement 1, how do we know that we won't run into a similar problem with statement two in which we could have 2^2*3^2/2^3*3^3?

In 1st case If s=8 and r=12 , then r/s doesn't give an integer. In this case A is not sufficient.
Am I right?

it matters which one is greater. if s is greater than r, it's impossible for r/s to be a whole number (it will automatically be a fraction less than 1).

first, rephrase the question: is s a factor of r? or, is r a multiple of s? or, is r divisible by s? etc.
you shouldn't leave the question in its original form; the original form is just sort of ugly.

(1)
here's the easiest way to handle this one:
s is a factor of itself.
therefore, since every factor of s (including s itself) is a factor of r, s is a factor of r.
sufficient.

you can do this part with a whole lot of song and dance involving prime numbers, but i like this argument because it's simple and elegant.

(2)
this just means that r and s are combinations of the same prime factors, but you don't know how many times each of those prime factors appears. for instance, 10 and 1000 are both made up of 2's and 5's. therefore, (r, s) could be (10, 1000), in which case the answer is 'no', or (1000, 10), in which case the answer is 'yes'.
insufficient.

ans = a

Posted from my mobile device
_________________

....and now go, make glorious MISTAKES and make PROFIT from those mistakes. You are already NAKED. There is NO reason not to FOLLOW your heart.