Complementary goods are defined by a negative cross elasticity of demand, which means simply that demand for one good increases when the price of another decreases (and vice versa).  A price increase for Good A resulting in a decrease in demand for Good B fits this definition.

The goods are thus not substitutes. They could potentially be one of the other types of goods but you don't have enough information in the question to make that determination.

Some, or even many, people may love both music and art, but that does not suggest that music books and artwork are regularly purchased together. The other examples are goods that clearly work better together.

A decrease in the price of a complementary good would result in an outward shift in the demand curve, which is the only shift which would result in increased price and quantity of a given good.

A decrease in the price of substitute good would result in an inward shift of the demand curve. A subsidy for production would affect the supply curve. A price floor above the current equilibrium would necessarily affect the price, but not the quantity traded.

An increase in production costs for tea results in an inward shift in the supply curve in the tea market. As a result, the market price of tea increases.

As tea becomes more expensive, consumers will prefer to consume more coffee at any given price. This is an outward shift in the demand curve that will result in a higher market price for coffee.

The correct answer is an example of a "network externality." The software might be a video chat service or spreadsheet software and the more people who use it the more value it has for others who use the same format. If it reaches a so-called "tipping point" it may lead to one firm dominating the market.

A public good is non-exclusive and non-rivalrous and thus provides external benefits that others can enjoy without paying. However, this does not mean that it cannot be sold at a price above zero. It is just that whoever produces such a good does so knowing some consumers will benefit without paying.

It is impossible to prevent people from enjoying clean air (assuming the air is clean, of course). Fish stocks are a common resource accessible to all (although there may be some attempts to limit access by government).

You can be excluded from satellite TV if you don't pay for the service.

This is an interesting case of a good that is non-rivalrous up to a point. In the middle of the night one additional car on the highway makes no difference to others already on the road. At the morning rush hour, even one car adds delay to a surprising number of drivers upstream.

You can enjoy a poetry reading or the benefits of law enforcement without diminishing the quality for others. The movie theater is the opposite case of the highway. It can definitely be rivalrous at peak times but on Wednesday mornings the theater is likely mostly empty and one additional person makes no difference.

A performance on a public street is both non-excludable and non-rivalrous. A concert in an arena and the discount warehouse store are excludable - you would have to pay to enjoy the benefits. A fillet of salmon is a private good - you would have to pay and by consuming it you would leave less (or none) for the next person.

A rise in consumer income would shift the demand curve for apples out while a large harvest would shift the supply curve out. This would unambiguously increase the quantity traded. The price would depend on the relative amount of the shifts and the slopes of the supply and demand curves.