Does starvation freedom imply progress? The above answer taken from the book https://www.amazon.com/Operating-Systems-Sibsankar-Haldar/dp/8131730220 says starvation freedom may not imply progress as processes can be deadlocked.

I think that starvation freedom implies deadlock freedom so there is no chance of deadlock and progress is also satisfied.

Is the answer in the picture correct ?
It depends on how exactly you define "starvation freedom" and "liveness."

I believe the book is talking about starvation freedom from the perspective of the OS scheduler, which usually does not know about locks managed by user processes.  So, the book is partially right (in some context).

Your definition is more broad and is what someone working in distributed systems would think (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liveness.  Note the important assumption "All processes are assumed to correctly use the mutex...").

However, I'd think that "liveness implies starvation freedom," but there's no justification in the book for the first statement in the answer.