They can make a difference based on the actions they do. For example focus on solutions to some problems based in the country as things are fixed and solutions are brang up it shows that the politician actually cares. I hope this helped in some way
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.
There are all kinds of stories of hostilities between early American colonists and the Native people who were already there. However, these hostilities did not occur with every European group who came. The French are a notable exception to this, and in fact, enjoyed excellent relations with the Natives almost from the very beginning.
Why were the French different? The main reason is that they did not try to change the Natives. They also did not compete with the Natives for land. When the French first came to the Americas in the 1530s and 1540s to engage in seasonal fur trading, they immediately established strong trading ties with the local Natives they found there. The Natives already dealt extensively in furs.
