Could someone please tell me if my logic for Statement (1) being insufficient is correct:
(1) the triangle could be right angled, but it also may not be. For example, we could have a triangle with length of 3 units and its an equilateral triangle with all sides equal to 3 units (which is isosceles), this is NOT a RAT. But on the other hand, we could have an isosceles right angled triangle (a 45-45-90 RAT) where the side lengths are 3 units and the other length (hyp) is 3root(2) units long.
Since we are unsure of which we have, (1) is INSUFFICIENT.
(2) tells us that the circle has a circumference of 3pi. This means that the diameter is 3 units. We are told in the q that the triangle that is inscribed in the circle has one side equal to three units. There is a property that states that if you have a triangle inscribed in a circle, and one of its sides is equal to the diameter of that circle, then the triangle has to be a RAT. Hence, (2) alone is sufficient to answer this question because (2) automatically tells us that the inscribed triangle is a RAT as one of its sides = diameter of circle.
Answer is B