I believe it is a run-on sentence but i am not certain
Implicit statement is <span>something that is understood but not clearly stated.
So your answer would best be B: Inferred.
</span>
Answer:
C- explain why they don't hold up
Explanation: I tried D and it was incorrect! In a rebuttal, your main purpose is to refute the counter argument and explain why that point-of-view doesn't hold up. The above answer is wrong!!!!
Answer:
<u>ENGLISH-</u> When given an analogy such as ink:pen, you would read it, "Ink is to pen." If you are given an analogy such as ink : pen : : milk : cow, it would be read "Ink is to pen as milk is to cow."
<u>SPANISH-</u> Cuando se le da una analogía como tinta: bolígrafo, lo leería, "La tinta es un bolígrafo". Si se le da una analogía como tinta: pluma:: leche: vaca, se leería "La tinta es la pluma como la leche es la vaca".
<u>GERMAN-</u> Wenn Sie eine Analogie wie Tinte: Stift erhalten, lesen Sie sie: "Tinte ist Stift". Wenn Sie eine Analogie wie Tinte: Stift :: Milch: Kuh erhalten, würde dies lauten: "Tinte ist zu Stift wie Milch zu Kuh."
Answer:
c
Explanation: hope this helps
