The most logical generalization is letter b. people in rural areas have smaller dating pool than people in urban areas.
<em>People in rural areas do not necessarily have an advantage with dating applications because everyone knows everyone, the number of people is much smaller, and they are people who naturally have a culture of approaching one to another.</em>
- <u>Itens a.</u> (dating applications do not often lead to romantic partnerships) <u>and d.</u> (most rural residents have located romantic partners through dating applications) > Both are distant from the contextualization of the passage.
- <u>Iten c.</u> (fewer rural residents than urban residents have smart phones) > It is not a generalization. It is another kind of conclusion. Not all conclusions are generalizations.
With the influx of people to urban centers came the increasingly obvious problem of city layouts. The crowded streets which were, in some cases, the same paths as had been "naturally selected" by wandering cows in the past were barely passing for the streets of a quarter million commuters. In 1853, Napoleon III named Georges Haussmann "prefect of the Seine," and put him in charge of redeveloping Paris' woefully inadequate infrastructure (Kagan, The Western Heritage Vol. II, pp. 564-565). This was the first and biggest example of city planning to fulfill industrial needs that existed in Western Europe. Paris' narrow alleys and apparently random placement of intersections were transformed into wide streets and curving turnabouts that freed up congestion and aided in public transportation for the scientists and workers of the time. Man was no longer dependent on the natural layout of cities; form was beginning to follow function. Suburbs, for example, were springing up around major cities
Yes because all schools in the us are no longer segregated
C) develope the atomic bomb... that ended up being used on Japan
