Rob and carla observed two trails of dogs' footprints in the mud. the spacing between the footprints in one set was markedly larger than in the other. rob concluded that one of the dogs must have been bigger than the other. however, carla had a different explanation.

which is the best alternative to rob's conclusion?
a) the two dogs were of different ages.
b) one of the dogs was in search of food.
c) the two dogs were of different species.
d) one of the dogs ran faster than the other.

Option (D) is the correct answer.

Explanation:

When a dog runs faster then due to more force applied by the foot there occurs large footprints of the dog.

Spaces between the feet of dog increases due to running faster as running makes an individual to take long steps.

Whereas when a dog walks normally then  his footprints will be smaller in size.

Therefore, we can conclude that the BEST alternative to Rob's conclusion is that one of the dogs ran faster than the other.

what does the table look like