which fact is not sufficient to show that planes R and S are perpendicular?

Just to add to the straight points made by my colleagues in Hallandale, FL and Franklin, TN ...

... I wish there were an easier way to make the points below ... Also, one has to strain their 3D imagination to see what I'm talking about ... please better employ right angle rulers and cardboard sheets ...

Making a long story short, plane R would be perpendicular onto plane S ... and vice-versa ...

... IF  {  { a 90° angle would exist between either FJ & BC or FJ & DE }  and  { of the 2 segments perpendicular to each other ... { one of the segments would be perpendicular onto the {R∩S} straight line } ... and ... { the other segment NOT being parallel/ included into the {R∩S} straight line }  }  } ...

... which tells us that ...

1. to assess 2 planes (R & S) as perpendicular onto each other, the value of some angles (in this case between any of the extensions of FJ, BC, DE intersecting in A) must be given ;

2. but such angles cannot be defined unless we know more about the orientation of FJ within plane R and the orientations of BC & DE within plane S ; specifically it is the orientation of these 3 segments defined with respect to the 2 plane {R∩S} straight line intersection that would make the difference.

I'm not sure if this helped.

So far, we have only one fact: FJ, BC, and DE intersect at A. Other two, "FJ is contained in plane R, BC and DE are contained in plane S", are "subfacts" . 

The fact, that FJ, BC, and DE intersect at point A is not sufficient to show that planes R and S are perpendicular.
If we will know that FJ is perpendicular to BC or DE we will say that plane R   |   to plane S.

P.S. Abel, make sure you copy the problem completely.

As according to these two facts, R could rotate 360 degrees in both directions (Up/Down, Left/Right).  Does this help?