Explanation:

Let's break it down:

- The original set is (3, 6, 63).

- If you multiply the first two: 3 × 6 = 18; that's not 63.

- Add them: 3 + 6 = 9; doesn't match.

- Try: (3 × 6) + (3 × 3) = 18 + 9 = 27; nope.

- Now, notice 3 × 6 × 3 = 54; close, but not it.

- But 3 × (6 + 3) = 3 × 9 = 27; still not it.

- Check 3 × 6² = 3 × 36 = 108; too high.

- What about 3² × 6 = 9 × 6 = 54; not 63.

- Now, 3 × 6 + 3 × 3 = 18 + 9 = 27.

- Wait—3 × 6 × (3 + 3) = 3 × 6 × 6 = 108; not working.

- Let's see if 3, 6, and 63 share a more unique pattern:

- Let's try 3² + 6² = 9 + 36 = 45.

- 3³ + 6³ = 27 + 216 = 243. No.

- What if it's (first × second) + (first × second) = (3 × 6) + (3 × 6) = 36.

- Last attempt with math: 3 × (6² - 3) = 3 × (36-3) = 3 × 33 = 99.

- How about 3 × 6² - 3 = 3 × 36 - 3 = 108 - 3 = 105.

Wait—maybe it’s just multiplying all three values?

3 × 6 × 3 = 54.

- Maybe the pattern is first + second = third? No.

- Maybe first × second + third = something? 3 × 6 + 63 = 18 + 63 = 81.

Looks like a tricky pattern. Try options using the only clearly unique operation left: (first × second) + first = third?

3 × 6 + 3 = 18 + 3 = 21.

Let's simplify: maybe it's first × second × (first or second)? Nope.

Let’s just check options for possible patterns.

---

Option 1: (5, 6, 92)

- 5 × 6 = 30.

- 5 × 6 × 5 = 150.

- 5 + 6 = 11.

- 5 × 6 × 6 = 180.

- 5 × 6² = 180.

Option 2: (7, 3, 58)

- 7 × 3 = 21.

- 7 × 3 × 7 = 147.

- 7 + 3 = 10.

- 7 × 3 × 3 = 63.

- 7 × 3² = 7 × 9 = 63.

- 7 × 7 + 3 = 49 + 3 = 52.

Option 3: (8, 5, 64)

- 8 × 5 = 40.

- 8 × 5 × 8 = 320.

- 8 × 8 = 64.

- 8 is squared, gives us third number.

Option 4: (4, 5, 89)

- 4 × 5 = 20.

- 4 × 4 = 16.

- 4 × 5 × 4 = 80.

- 4 × 4 + 5 = 16 + 5 = 21.

- 4 × 5² = 4 × 25 = 100.

---

Wait—look back. In option 3, the third number is actually the square of the first number: 8 × 8 = 64.

Check if same applies to original: 3 × 3 = 9—but original is 63. Try this: reverse: second × second = 36.

Hmm. Try (first × second) + (first × third)—no.

Check for `third number = first × second × something`. Back to 3 × 6 × 3 = 54. Not matching. But 3 × 6 = 18, 6 × 3 = 18 as well.

Is it just 3, 6, 63—numbers arranged? Actually, 6×10 + 3 = 63. That's not consistent with other options.

But in option 1: 6×10 + 5 = 65.

Option 2: 3×10 + 7 = 37.

Option 3: 5×10 + 8 = 58.

No.

Wait, but in set (3, 6, 63)—what's a connection? 63 is 3 × 21, or 6 × 10.5.

Actually, 3 × 21 = 63.

Is it first × (second × something)? Seems less likely.

Wait—what about simple concatenation?

Is 6 and 3 to make 63, so maybe option (8, 5, 64): Does that logic fit? 8 and 5 is 85, not 64.

Let’s check squares:

3² = 9, 6² = 36, but 9, 36, no 63 connection.

New approach: in (3, 6, 63), 6 × 10 + 3 = 63 (like before). Maybe reverse: 3 × 21 = 63; does it work for other sets?

Option 4: (4, 5, 89): 4 × 22.25 = 89; doesn't check out cleanly.

Option 1: (5, 6, 92): 5 × 18.4 = 92.

Option 2: (7, 3, 58): 7 × 8.28... not matching.

Option 3: (8, 5, 64): 8 × 8 = 64.

Finally—a match: (8, 5, 64): 8 × 8 = 64. The third number is the square of the first number.

Here’s the thing: 3 × 3 = 9 for the original. But its third number is 63—so maybe in the original, second is squared: 6 × 6 = 36—not matching.

Maybe it's about both being perfect squares? 3, 6 aren’t squares.

But in Option 3, you get a clear mathematical tie between 8 and 64 that's direct and unique.

So, Option 3 (8, 5, 64) is the best fit for internal mathematical connection.

Option 3 is the right answer.