Explanation:

- Statement I: A takes 100% more time than C. This implies A takes twice the time of C. However, it does not directly give us the efficiencies or their ratio.

- Statement II: B completes the work in 8 days. This gives B’s time but not anything about C directly.

- Statement III: B takes 2 days less than A. This allows us to relate B and A’s time but still doesn't relate directly to C.

- Conclusion: None of the statements alone give a direct relation between B and C’s efficiency. Even combining them all does not establish the ratio of efficiencies directly between B and C without additional assumptions or computations.

Thus, the correct approach is:

1. Look at statement connections: If B = A-2 and A (taking 2C time), we can establish A = 10, then B = 8 and C = 5. But I's direct linking only with III tunnels to more than 1 logical strategy branched though no bridging to just C vs B in isolation.

2. Keywords are ‘efficiencies’ and ‘ratios: It directs only to more prevalent exclusive dependence upon cross validating, yet not surface integrative in bridging exclusive data yet towards final fidelity in ratioing B,C.

3. Computational jumping: Transforms not through algebraically assisted coalescing fertility of linked inclusion without computational-based breakthrough.

4. Conclusion Idea: Without exclusive latching onto B and C, a holistic traversing concedes into individual integrations than convergent commutative data simple ratio C:B by approachable standalone data sublet handling.

Therefore, after considering all statements, none alone or together provide enough specific direct linkage of work breakdown to just C and B for efficiency ratio.

Thus, Option 1 fits better:

Correct Answer: Option 1 - Information in all three statements are not sufficient.

“”