What can be inferred about Brad's residency after declaring himself a resident of Nevada?

Declaring himself a resident of Nevada indicates that Brad has taken steps to establish his primary residence there, but this designation carries implications about his ties to California. The choice that suggests his absence from California is considered permanent is correct due to the fact that declaring residency in another state involves more than just an official statement; it often includes actions such as changing his voter registration, obtaining a driver's license in Nevada, and letting go of any significant property or legal ties in California.

This implies that Brad's intention is to consider himself permanently settled in Nevada, which can be inferred as a long-term or indefinite change in his residency status. While it's essential to evaluate the notion of severing all ties or connections to California, the idea that his absence is permanent aligns more closely with the implications of claiming a new residency.

In contrast, the other choices suggest various forms of continuing ties or residency claims to California, which would contradict the direct implications of declaring residency in Nevada. Thus, the reasoning behind why his absence is labeled as permanent rests on the context of his declaration and the understanding of residency as it relates to real estate and personal connections.