answer:Ruth's cow has 16 spots on its left side. On the right side, the cow has 3 times the number of spots on its left side, which is 3 * 16 = 48 spots. Now, we add the spots from both sides to find the total number of spots. So, 16 left side spots + 48 right side spots = 64 spots. The cow has a total of 64 spots. The answer is: 64., Ruth has counted 16 spots on the left side of the cow. She has also counted three times the number of spots on the left side plus 7 on the right side. This gives us the equation 3*(16) + 7. Calculating this gives us 48 + 7 = 55 spots on the right side. To find the total number of spots, we add the spots on both sides: 16 (left) + 55 (right) = 71 spots. The answer is: 71.,First, we need to find the number of spots on the cow's right side. The cow has three times the number of spots on its left side, so 3 * 16 = 48 spots. Then, add the 7 extra spots, so 48 + 7 = 55 spots on its right side. Now, to find the total number of spots, add the spots on both sides: 16 (left side) + 55 (right side) = 71 spots. The answer is: 71.

answer:Based on the information given in the original sentence, "Two dogs in the surf holding on to the same stick," I cannot definitively conclude that "The two dogs holding the stick are playing tug of war." This is because holding a stick together does not necessarily imply that they are playing tug of war. They could be simply carrying or playing with the stick in a different manner. Therefore, more context or information is needed to accurately determine if the two dogs are playing tug of war or not.,To answer Denny's question, we need to analyze the given sentence and compare it with the statement about the two dogs playing tug of war. Given sentence: "Two dogs in the surf holding on to the same stick." Statement: "The two dogs holding the stick are playing tug of war." Step 1: Identify the key elements in the given sentence. - Two dogs - In the surf - Holding on to the same stick Step 2: Identify the key elements in the statement. - Two dogs - Holding the stick - Playing tug of war Step 3: Compare the key elements. - Both the sentence and the statement mention two dogs holding a stick. Step 4: Analyze the context. - The given sentence mentions the dogs being in the surf, which adds a different context to the situation. They could be retrieving the stick from the water rather than playing tug of war. Step 5: Conclusion - While it is possible that the two dogs holding the stick are playing tug of war, the given sentence doesn't explicitly state that. The context of being in the surf makes it more likely that they are retrieving the stick together or simply both holding onto it, but we cannot definitively conclude that they are playing tug of war based solely on the information provided.,To answer your question, let's break it down and analyze the given sentence. The sentence states, "Two dogs in the surf holding on to the same stick." From this, we can infer that: 1. There are two dogs. 2. They are in the surf (likely implying they are in the water while playing or swimming). 3. The dogs are holding the same stick. Now, based on these facts, we can discuss whether it's true that "The two dogs holding the stick are playing tug of war." Tug of war typically involves two or more individuals (or animals) attempting to pull on a rope or object towards their respective sides. In this case, the "object" is a stick. The given sentence suggests the two dogs are holding on to the stick from different directions, pointing to some form of struggle or wrestling over control of the stick. However, we cannot definitively confirm if they are playing tug of war since the original sentence does not explicitly mention this game. It could also be possible that they are playing some other game or attempting to retrieve the stick. In conclusion, while it may be a plausible assumption based on the given sentence, it cannot be confirmed conclusively that the two dogs are playing tug of war.

answer:The sentence "A skateboarder wearing blue jeans and a gray shirt performs a stunt along a graffiti-colored wall" does not provide information about the skater tagging the wall or watching his friend do a trick. The sentence only describes the skater's appearance, the location of the stunt, and the appearance of the wall. Therefore, based on the given sentence, it is not true to say "The skater tagged the wall and watched his friend do a trick.",Step 1: Identify the key elements in both sentences. Sentence 1: "A skateboarder wearing blue jean and a gray shirt performs a stunt along a graffiti colored wall." Key elements: skateboarder, blue jean, gray shirt, stunt, graffiti colored wall Sentence 2: "The skater tagged the wall and watched his friend do a trick." Key elements: skater, tagged the wall, watched, friend, trick Step 2: Compare the key elements in both sentences. 1. Skateboarder vs Skater: These terms can be considered synonymous, as both refer to a person who rides a skateboard. 2. Blue jean and gray shirt vs no description: The first sentence provides a description of the skateboarder's clothing, while the second sentence does not. 3. Stunt vs trick: These terms can be considered synonymous, as both refer to a maneuver or feat performed on a skateboard. 4. Graffiti colored wall vs tagged the wall: The first sentence indicates that the skateboarder is performing a stunt along a wall with graffiti, while the second sentence suggests that the skater was responsible for the graffiti (tagging the wall). 5. No mention of a friend in the first sentence, while the second sentence mentions a friend performing a trick. Step 3: Determine if the statements are true based on the comparison. Based on the comparison of key elements in both sentences, it is not true that "The skater tagged the wall and watched his friend do a trick." The first sentence does not mention the skateboarder being responsible for the graffiti, nor does it mention a friend performing a trick. Therefore, the second sentence cannot be considered true based on the information provided in the first sentence.,To determine the accuracy of the statement "The skater tagged the wall and watched his friend do a trick," let's analyze it step-by-step: 1. In the original statement, it mentions a "skateboarder wearing blue jeans and a gray shirt" performing a stunt along a graffiti colored wall. There is no mention of the skater tagging the wall. 2. The original statement does not mention any friends, so it is impossible to confirm whether the skater was watching a friend's trick. Based on this analysis, it is not true that "The skater tagged the wall and watched his friend do a trick," as there is no evidence or information provided in the original sentence that supports either of these claims.

answer:To solve this gradually, let's analyze both sentences and identify which one does not make sense. Sentence A: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, eggplant, etc." In this sentence, the speaker is talking about growing vegetables for consumption. Both "potatoes" and "eggplant" are vegetables, which aligns with the context of the sentence. Therefore, this sentence makes sense. Sentence B: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, pork, etc." In this sentence, the speaker is also talking about growing vegetables for consumption. However, "potatoes" is a vegetable, but "pork" is not. Pork is a type of meat that comes from pigs, so it does not fit in the context of growing vegetables. Thus, this sentence does not make sense. Based on this analysis, Sentence B does not make sense, while Sentence A does., The task here is to identify which sentence out of the two does not make sense. Let's analyze each sentence: - Sentence A: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, eggplant, etc." This sentence makes sense. It's indicating that various types of vegetables, including potatoes and eggplant, are grown for consumption. - Sentence B: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, pork, etc." This sentence does not make sense. The issue is the inclusion of "pork" in the list. Pork is a type of meat, not a vegetable. Therefore, it's illogical to say that it's grown. Hence, Sentence B does not make sense.,To determine which sentence does not make sense, let's analyze both options: Sentence A: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, eggplant, etc." Sentence B: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, pork, etc." In Sentence A, the words "potatoes" and "eggplant" are both vegetables, so the sentence makes logical sense. In Sentence B, however, "pork" is not a vegetable but rather a type of meat. Since the sentence is referring to growing vegetables, it becomes illogical to include "pork" in this context. Thus, the sentence that does not make sense is: - Sentence B: "we grow many different vegetables to eat: potatoes, pork, etc."