Premise: laura loves to eat apple but not the banana while john loves to eat mango and the banana. kim loves to eat mango but not the apple and jim loves to eat banana but not the mango. each child loves to eat two of the three fruits (mango, banana and apple). what can you conclude from these premise?

Laura loves mango, Kim loves banana and Jim loves banana

Step-by-step explanation:

If every child loves to eat two things then we can tell what those are even if it doesn't tell us right away.  Like Laura, it says she likes Apples but not Bananas.  If she has to like two things but it can't be Bananas it must be something else, and the only other thing s Mangos, so Laura likes Mangos.

Jon loves Mangos and Bananas, so that's both, which means he doesn't love apples.

Kim loves Mango but not Apple, so she has to love something else, and the only thing left is Banana.

Jim doesn't love Mango so he has to Love Apple since he also loves banana.

Let me know if something didn't make sense.  

not only in mathematics, scientific proof also are required in the other field of science. also maths proofs are of particular structure, containing steps and logics. so proving is like doing science, it is science. that's why it is important to prove. 

an inaccurate proof leads to errors, or stating results that are not accurate.  which wil mess the probelm up you dont want this

c - they will have the same distribution

step-by-step explanation:

this is the only one that could make sense. : )