Using "curious" in the sense of "odd" or "strange" is more British than American. It does still crop up here and there, but is somewhat archaic, formal -- or, in fiction, intended to convey a British and/or old-fashioned kind of person. E.g., 'How curious!' Dorothy said, peering at the bright purple tree.
So absent context, "The curious boy" will be ambiguous. No getting around it. You have to tell whether it's about the boy investigating something ("The curious boy pressed deeper into the forest") or about a boy being odd in some way ("The curious boy walked down the sidewalk, and we all stared at him"). Or if it means both!
This ambiguity will also be used when someone wants to make puns. "What a curious creature you are!" may mean "you are always wanting to investigate" or it may mean "odd." I recall there being some of this double-meaning in Alice in Wonderland.
"He's very curious" will generally be understood to mean someone has the quality of curiosity, not oddness, in modern American English, but if you want to reduce ambiguity, you use "about" to clarify. "He's very curious about everything!" "She's very curious about ancient Egypt." "The neighbors very curious about our business, and I want better curtains in our house!"
In modern American, "curious" people or animals (the curious cat, the curious child) will be "inquisitive" with an ambiguous side-order of "odd"; the more stereotypically inquisitive the animal (or person: the curious neighbor), the more likely the assumption will swing to "inquisitive." But "curious" inanimate objects will always be "odd." And "a curiosity" is an odd thing.
(You wouldn't use "Curious you!" because either way, applying adjectives to pronouns rarely works well. "Red you!" "Angry him!" "Stinky her!" "Inquisitive me!" -- you can get away with it sometimes, in a slangy fashion, but you tend to need a noun, like "Curious George," the monkey who is curious about everything! (The Curious George books are a series of children's books which strongly normalizes "curious" as an adjective meaning "inquisitive.")
So if you want to avoid ambiguity, use "odd" or "peculiar" or "weird" or "fascinating" in American English, to mean those things. And only use "curious" for things like "He's very curious" (inquisitive) or "I'm curious about this sentence here" (I want to understand this sentence better, I am interested in this sentence).
It's important to understand why the test says "fortunate enough" is redundant in this context. The given sentence isn't saying that being fortunate is a required condition to own a house in the city, but rather a characteristic of those who do. We can rephrase the example as:
Because few people are able to afford a house in the city, those who can are fortunate.
The problem is that, even though it's slightly redundant, it's perfectly natural to express this using "fortunate enough", because there is little significant difference between:
They are fortunate enough to own a house in the city
and
They are fortunate to own a house in the city.
One says they are sufficiently fortunate, and the other says they are just fortunate.
It's "a difference that makes no difference". But many non-native tests of English like to "split hairs" to hide the fact that the test makers care more about students' ability to memorize trivia than to their ability to learn how English is actually spoken.
Best Answer
I don't find the use of prior redundant at all in such circumstances. And appointments aren't "always" made in advance. Consider this dialog:
If the person had answered by saying prior appointment, that would have clued me in that the appointment should have been made in advance, and that walk-in appointments weren't granted.