With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". knowledge of the allegations made in the affidavit. But the cited footnote in Tavery stands only for the proposition that “a mere statement of belief ... is insufficient to support summary judgment.” Id. As we noted, statements must be “made on personal knowledge.” Id. (quoting Fed. R.Civ.P. 56(e)). But an affidavit will not be stricken simply because it does not contain those specific words as long as it is clear that the affiant is basing his or her statements on personal knowledge. See Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Ass’n, 897 F.2d 999, 1018 (9th Cir.1990) (“That Rule 56(e)’s requirements of personal knowledge and competence to testify have been met may be inferred from the affidavits themselves.”); Lodge Hall Music, Inc. v. Waco Wrangler Club, Inc., 831 F.2d 77, 80 (5th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>). Here, the affidavits in question met that

A: holding that wjhile trial courts are encouraged to state all findings in their written child custody orders they are not required to do so as long as the basis for their decisions is clear from the record and thus susceptible to review
B: holding that even though defendants response does not affirmatively state in the document itself that they are competent to testify as to the facts to which they swore does not necessarily doom their testimony  so long as the record taken as a whole demonstrates that their testimony meets the requirements of rule 56
C: holding that it was proper for court to rely on affidavits of defendants representatives in negotiations because their personal knowledge and competence to testify are reasonably inferred from their positions and the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore
D: holding that the court may not overturn the administrative law judges factual findings as long as they are supported by competent substantial evidence
B.