The last two options don't contain the same amount of information. You don't know how many pets ran away or how many were caught again. So you can eliminate those two options right away.
So, you are choosing between the first 2. The first option is wordy. You can see that they repeat the word "them" twice in the last sentence, which is unnecessary.
The 2nd option manages to convey the same amount of information as the original sentence, but in one sentence and without unnecessary repetition of words.
False. It would be similar triangles not congruent.
MacaBeth has three reasons not to kill the king. First, killing Duncan may come back to harm MacaBeth in the end. Second, the king is currently in MacaBeth's care and MacaBeth is his host. Third, Duncan is a noble man and many would miss him. MacaBeth's only reason for wanting to kill Duncan is his ambition to become the king himself. He decides not to do it. However, he is eventually convinced by Lady MacaBeth to go forward with killing Duncan when she questions his manhood.
Answer:
The author implicitly states that she believes that dragons once existed.
Explanation:
She was never super clear on her belief in the existence of dragons, so the second and fourth options are out.
At the end of the fifth paragraph, she states how the sound of dragons "rekindles" the possibility of their past existence. This would imply that she still thinks dragons once existed, eliminating the third option.
