If \( \mathrm{m} \angle \mathrm{VWY}=26^{\circ} \), what is \( \mathrm{m} \angle \mathrm{VZY} \) ? \[ \begin{array}{l}\text { O A. } 64^{\circ} \\ \text { O B. } 128^{\circ} \\ \text { O C. } 52^{\circ} \\ \text { O D. } 42^{\circ}\end{array} \] mentum. All rights reserved.

To solve for \( \mathrm{m} \angle VZY \), we first need to understand the relationship between the angles. If \( \angle VWY \) is given as \( 26^{\circ} \), consider whether \( V, W, Z, \) and \( Y \) lie on a straight line or are part of any geometric configuration. Assuming the angles are supplementary, which generally they are in a linear configuration, we have: \[ \mathrm{m} \angle VZY = 180^{\circ} - \mathrm{m} \angle VWY = 180^{\circ} - 26^{\circ} = 154^{\circ} \] However, since 154 degrees is not an option, let’s explore the possibility of \( VZY \) being an external angle depending on the specific configuration. Now, if we assume a typical transversal scenario where \( \angle VZY \) and \( \angle VWY \) relate in a manner where one might be the vertical angle or involve complementary relationships, without knowing the exact placement of points, it seems the immediate options cannot be directly concluded. Aligning answer choices with potential relationships can lead me to double-check the assumption. If no clear relationships are defined based on the standard configurations (like triangles or parallel lines cut by transversals), the logical deduction can appear confusing, and we might need more context. Thus, for our specific configuration involving points V, W, Y, and Z the results don't yield flowing into the provided answer choices based on given strict conditions. Meanwhile, if a typical inclination agrees, the plausible conclusion remains on 154's divergence. Remember, always scrutinize potential details of spatial relations just in case; it might just lead to hidden angles!