Explanation:

Let’s break it down:

- In the sets (11, 22, 44) and (15, 12, 42), there’s a pattern: first number × (second number ÷ first number) = third number.

- For (11,22,44): 22/11 = 2. 11×2 = 22, not 44. But 22×2 = 44.

- For (15,12,42): 42/12 = 3.5, not an integer relation.

- Alternatively, check if third number = first + (first × second/first): doesn't fit cleanly. Let’s test multiplicative add-on.

- Now, look: 11 × 2 = 22, 22 × 2 = 44. Next set: 15 × 2 = 30, not 12; 12 × 3.5 = 42. So, maybe the relation is second × some number = third.

- But across both sets, the third number is the second number multiplied by 2 in set 1, by 3.5 in set 2. Not consistent.

Now, let’s look at the options:

- Option 1: (3, 3, 15)

- 3 × 5 = 15, but 3 doesn’t fit in sequence.

- Option 2: (21, 42, 63)

- 21 × 2 = 42, 42 × 1.5 = 63.

- Option 3: (12, 24, 39)

- 12 × 2 = 24, but 24 × 1.625 = 39 (doesn’t match previous multipliers).

- Option 4: (18, 8, 44)

- 18 × (8/18) = 8, no; 18 + 8 = 26; 18 × 2.44 = 44 (not matching previous logic).

Here’s what this really means: The only sets where the “second number = first number × 2, third number = second number × 2” pattern holds *consistently* is the first example (11,22,44) and *option 2*: (21,42,63): 21 × 2 = 42; 42 × 1.5 = 63.

So the correct answer is:

Option 2: (21, 42, 63)

- The pattern is a simple multiplication chain in (11,22,44) and (21,42,63)

- The other options don’t repeat this chain

- Option 4 doesn’t match the pattern at all

- Best fit is option 2