Which sentence best uses transitions to explain how the evidence supports the reason in the accompanying claim statement? Clearly, Rainsford did not kill Zaroff in self-defense. This statement, therefore, shows that Rainsford killed Zaroff in self-defense. So, Rainsford is not justified because there is no proof he acted in self-defense. In the end, Rainsford is not justified in killing Zaroff.

The correct answer is C) So Rainsford is not justified because there is no proof he acted in self-defense.

The sentence that best uses transitions to explain how the evidence supports the reason in the accompanying claim statement is "So Rainsford is not justified because there is no proof he acted in self-defense."

In grammar, transitions are connections between two parts of the same sentence to give it more coherence. Examples of transitions could be beside, in fact, first, furthermore, because, consequently, as a result of, similarly, finally, and for instance, among many others. That is why the sentence that best uses transitions to explain how the evidence supports the reason in the accompanying claim statement is "So Rainsford is not justified because there is no proof he acted in self-defense."

Option C, "So, Rainsford is not justified because there is no proof he acted in self-defense"