Can someone explain this further to me? For instance, I thought that constructive logic merely says that not-not-A is not necessarily equal to A. In other words, truth is more about whether A is "provable" while not-A means "not provable", while it's perfectly possible for it to be unknowable whether something is provable.

However, in constructive logic isn't it still fine to restrict a value to one of only two values? For instance, it's still valid to say that (for the sake of argument) someone can only be married or unmarried, in constructive logic, right? So therefore, of someone isn't married, they are unmarried by definition - because we're not talking about values of truth/provability. Right?

So in other words, if we agree that someone can only be married or unmarried (which I take as an assumed premise in this problem), wouldn't the answer still be A in constructive/intuitionist logic?