Here candidate keys are,
- name, courseNo
- rollNo, courseNo
That makes name, rollNo, and courseNo prime attributes (part of some candidate key)
Functional dependencies $3$ and $4$ are not partial $\text{FD}$s.
If a relation schema is not in $\text{2NF},$ then for some $\textsf{FD}\; x\rightarrow y, x$ should be a proper subset of some candidate key and $y$ should be a non-prime attribute.
$\textsf{FD}$s $3$ and $4$ are not violating $\text{2NF}$, because the RHS are prime attributes.
For a relation to be in $\textsf{3NF}$, for every $\text{FD}, x\rightarrow y,$ $x$ should be a super key or $y$ is a prime attribute. For $\textsf{FD}$s $3$ and $4,$ LHS are not super keys, but RHS are prime attributes. So, they are not violating $\textsf{3NF}.$
For a relation to be in $\textsf{BCNF}$, for every $\text{FD},$ $x \rightarrow y , x$ should be super key. This is clearly violated for $\textsf{FD}$s $3$ and $4$ and so the relation scheme is not in $\textsf{BCNF}$ and hence not in $\textsf{4NF}$ also.
Correct option: B.