Ideation/Source of the content: Navathe 6th Edition, 22.1: Recovery Concepts
Support for option A and against option C: Since check-pointing is not used we have to depend on the system logs. Let's suppose we have three transactions A, B and C. Also assume that transaction A and C commits before failure and B was started but the system crashed before it can commit. So, in the first recovery process database will redo A and C as per the system logs. Now consider that while redoing A successfully commits, the system crashed for the second time before the B can commit. So, while recovering for the second time the same system logs will be used. However, it is should be noted that the system logs will also have entry to redo transaction A since it was committed after the first failure. However, the undo/redo operations are idempotent (they are the same no matter how many time they are executed).
Against option B: If the system crashes again same logic as above can be used for recovery.
Against option D: Inconsistency refers to situations (generally) when the value of a shared variable varies in two or more transactions, but that doesn’t seem to happen here as no uncommitted transaction’s data is being read/written during the entire recovery process.
Conclusion: So, the only option of selecting the same list for undo/redo seems to be correct.