I am finding two ways to do that which I think is right. 1. Inherit ClassB from ClassA and ClassC from class ClassB. Take the access modifier that suits you.(is-A at two levels) 2. Have two instances of ClassB and ClassA in ClassC.Take the access modifier that suits you. (has-A).
The 2nd option is usually used at places where you don't want/have multiple inheritance.
It has been a long time since I took this test. Getting to the point, but why do you want to have multiple inheritence. The concept of OO will be destroyed if you have multiple inheritance. It is like 2 objects like a dog and an orange. You can't inherit 2 objects into one object. It is either a dog or an orange. So multiple inheritence won't work.
While I agree that Java disallows multiple inheritance, I don't agree that it would destroy the concept of OO. Yes, I could live a happy life without seeing a dog/orange hybrid, but I think camera cell phones are sort of cool. Some can even play MP3s. So there are real-life examples of objects with multiple inheritance.
However, it dirties up a language. If both "Phone" and "Camera" have a method with the same name, which one do you use for CameraPhone? What if they have different return types? It's a mess Java chooses to avoid entirely. You can make a CameraPhone that contains Phone and Camera instances instead.
One interesting consideration is that inner classes can inherit independently from their enclosing class. So considering the special "link" an inner class has to its enclosing class, this might be considered a form of multiple inheritance...
"We're kind of on the level of crossword puzzle writers... And no one ever goes to them and gives them an award." ~Joe Strummer sscce.org