To analyze the expression \( (2,385 - 846) \) and determine which statement is true, we first need to calculate the value of \( 2,385 - 846 \):
\[ 2,385 - 846 = 1,539 \]
Now, let's examine each option to see which one correctly describes \( 4 \) in relation to \( 1,539 \):
A. The given expression is 4 times the value of \( (2,385 - 846) \).
Calculation: \( 4 \times 1,539 = 6,156 \).
This is not true since it does not equal \( 1,539 \).
B. The given expression is 4 divided by the value of \( (2,385 - 846) \).
Calculation: \( \frac{4}{1,539} \).
This is also not true since it does not equal \( 1,539 \).
C. The given expression is one-fourth the value of \( (2,385 - 846) \).
Calculation: \( \frac{1,539}{4} = 384.75 \).
This is not true since it does not equal \( 1,539 \).
D. The given expression is 4 less than the value of \( (2,385 - 846) \).
Calculation: \( 1,539 - 4 = 1,535 \).
This is not true since it does not equal \( 1,539 \).
Since none of the options provided (A, B, C, D) correctly describe the expression \( (2,385 - 846) \), the conclusion is that none of the statements are true.
However, if the expression is supposed to be just \( 4 \) rather than about the result of \( (2,385 - 846) \), then:
- The expression \( 4 \) itself is certainly not correctly represented by any of A, B, C, or D with respect to that computed value \( 1,539 \).
Please check the question as it seems there may have been a mistake in how the options relate to the computed value. If the expression was clerically supposed to compare \( 4 \) directly or was misphrased, kindly clarify if more context or reconstructing is needed.