You just have to do a letter of what it says in there!
What can be logically concluded about each option:
- <u><em>Faideaux is the speaker´s only dog.</em></u> No. Because the speaker indicated the name of the dog that won, so he/she must have others;
- <u><em>The speaker has more than one dog.</em></u> Yes. Because the speaker mentioned the dog's name. He/She made it clear that it was Faideaux, not another;
- <u><em>Faideaux is the only one of the speaker's dogs to compete in the show.</em></u> Faideaux competed and won, but it can not be concluded that it was the only one competing;
- <em><u>Faideaux is among several of the speaker's dogs to compete in the show.</u></em> It also has no way to conclude that the speaker´s dogs were with Faideaux at the county dog show.
Answer:
...ok
Explanation:
≥≧≦≤
.^◡^.
<em>aM gObLiN gImMiE yE pOiNtS! </em> ( thanks )
He couldn't understand what he is supposed to see besides ink,He could not see the pictures either.
Answer:
what is the electoral college
Explanation:
the others have nothin to do with it