That's neither applied nor an explanation. For the amount of thinking I had to do to sort out what you were getting at, you could just as well have made each option take the form "Person X's theory of Y". I don't mind working out philosophical arguments, but this does leave us with something like Myth's objection; if you have to know the lines of thinking in advance or work them out with no help from the quiz text, then what role is the quiz playing in figuring out which stance you favor?
That aside, your sample question still suffers from the problem of forcing me to go with the least objectionable answer.
In this case, I choose option 2. There seems to be some objective state-of-affairs governing what I call true. Since the seeming is subjective, the statement 'Truth is subjective' comes closest to describing my position. There's a readily apparent way of meaning it that makes it true, at least.
Option 3 is out. Assuming I know what you're talking about (which, maybe I don't; my interpretation of your terse account involves an uncomfortable amount of guesswork), I'd say that I can't separate subject and object but that this is not a necessary property for all possible perceivers of truth. Of course, that's based on how I interpret your words; you might have meant them differently. If my natural interpretation of option 3 is correct, then it's a false statement, so I can't choose it as an explanation of my philosophy. If my natural interpretation of option 3 is incorrect, then option 3 fails to explain its point in a manner that I find sufficient, so I can't choose it as an explanation of my philosophy.
Option 1 has appeal, but I can't prove it even if it is so.
"Oh, you have promise. But wait until you have more years fall upon you, and you will see what a shell your heart will become."