Which method of characterized focus on how characters interact with one another

I've done this problem before: It is dialogue

given the fact that the question is about the detail that best support the idea that oppressive leaders use   propaganda to achieve thir goals,   the first option does not refer to any kind of propaganda, since it only tells about that the milk and the windfall apple should be reserved for the pigs. in the second option, that is, "snowball and napoleon sent out flights of pigeons whose instructions were to mingle with the animals on the neighbouring farms, tell them the story of the rebellion, and teach them the tune of "beasts of england". it can be identified that the oppressors make use of the propaganda, which is represented by the pigeons, and the information they have to tell other animals about what was happening in the farm in order to get their objectives. for that reason, the right answer is the second option, taking into account that the third option do not refer to propaganda since it only talks about that they did not want jones back. and, finally, the last option refers to the result of the given news, but it does not mean about the propaganda they used to achieve their goals.

it was surely an odd creature that one made up by reading the historians first and the poets afterwards a worm winged like an eagle; the spirit of life and elegance and charm,   in a kitchen chopping up suet. but these creatures, monst'r however entertaining to the imagination, hast no existence in fact. what one might doth to bringeth h'r to life wast to bethink poetically and prosaically at one and the same moment,   thus keeping in toucheth with fact—that the lady is mrs martin, ag'd thirty-six, did dress in blue, wearing a black coxcomb and brown shoeth; but not losing sight of fiction eith'r—that the lady is a vessel in which all s'rts of spirits and f'rces art coursing and flashing p'rpetually. the moment, howev'r, yond one tries this method with the elizabethan mistress, one brancheth of illumination fails; one is did hold up by the scarcity of facts.   one knoweth nothing detailed, nothing p'rfectly true and substantial about h'r.   hist'ry scarcely mentions h'r.   and i did turn to professeth'r trevelyan again to seeth what hist'ry meanteth to that gent.   i hath found by looking at his chapt'r headings yond t meanteth.