Answers
Answer:
B. It was the frog that caught my eye on the lily pad in the pond.
Explanation:
In sentence B, "It was the frog that caught my eye on the lily pad in the pond," the phrase "on the lily pad in the pond" is a modifier that describes where the frog was located. However, the placement of this modifier creates confusion because it seems to modify "my eye" instead of "frog."
To clarify the intended meaning, the modifier should be placed closer to the noun it is meant to modify. A possible revision could be:
"The frog on the lily pad in the pond caught my eye."
Related Questions
If you were writing a personal narrative, what could you do in your conclusion?(1 point) Responses I could let the readers draw their own conclusions about this experience. I could let the readers draw their own conclusions about this experience. I could review the beginning of this experience to the reader. I could review the beginning of this experience to the reader. I could provide a lesson that I learned through this experience. I could provide a lesson that I learned through this experience. I could restate the reasons why the reader should like this story. I could restate the reasons why the reader should like this story.
Answers
Answer:
If I were writing a personal narrative, the conclusion could include the following:
- Letting the readers draw their own conclusions about the experience.
- Reviewing the beginning of the experience to the reader.
- Providing a lesson that I learned through this experience.
These elements would help wrap up the narrative by allowing readers to reflect on the story and its significance, providing a sense of closure, and potentially leaving them with a lasting impression or takeaway from the narrative. Restating the reasons why the reader should like the story might not be necessary as it focuses more on convincing the reader rather than concluding the narrative.
Explanation:
Answer:
If your were writing a personal narrative, the conclusion could include the following:
Letting the readers draw their own conclusions about the experience.- Reviewing the beginning of the experience to the reader.- Providing a lesson that I learned through this experience.THESE ARE IMPORTANT
Which statement best defines a misplaced modifier?
Answers
Answer:
C. A word, phrase, or clause that seems to refer to or modify an unintended word because of its placement in a sentence.
Explanation:
A misplaced modifier is a grammatical error that occurs when a word, phrase, or clause is not placed in close proximity to the word or phrase it is intended to modify or describe. This misplacement can lead to confusion or ambiguity in the meaning of a sentence.
Option C best defines a misplaced modifier by stating that it modifies the verb in a sentence. This means that a misplaced modifier affects the way the action or state described by the verb is understood within the sentence.
For example, consider the sentence: "I saw a man on my way to work with binoculars." In this case, the phrase "with binoculars" is intended to modify the verb "saw," indicating that the man was the one with binoculars. However, due to its placement at the end of the sentence, it appears to modify the noun "work." This misplaced modifier creates confusion about who had the binoculars. To correct the sentence, it could be rephrased as "On my way to work, I saw a man with binoculars."
In summary, a misplaced modifier occurs when a word, phrase, or clause is not placed in close proximity to the word or phrase it is intended to modify. Option C accurately describes a misplaced modifier as one that modifies the verb in a sentence, emphasizing its impact on the understanding of the action or state described by the verb.
Answer:
A misplaced modifier is a word, phrase, or clause that is improperly separated from the word it modifies / describes. Because of the separation, sentences with this error often sound awkward, ridiculous, or confusing.
Nag coiled himself down, coil by coil, round the bulge at the bottom of the water-jar, and Rikki-tikki stayed still as death. After an hour he began to move, muscle by muscle, toward the jar. Nag was asleep, and Rikki-tikki looked at his big back, wondering which would be the best place for a good hold. "If I don't break his back at the first jump,” said Rikki, "he can still fight; and if he fights—Oh, Rikki!” He looked at the thickness of the neck below the hood, but that was too much for him; and a bite near the tail would only make Nag savage. "It must be the head,” he said at last; 'the head above the hood; and when I am once there, I must not let go.” Then he jumped. The head was lying a little clear of the water-jar, under the curve of it; and, as his teeth met, Rikki braced his back against the bulge of the red earthenware to hold down the head.
How does the protagonist move the plot forward in this excerpt?
Nag moves the plot forward by establishing a conflict.
Nag moves the plot forward by planning to reach a goal.
Rikki-tikki moves the plot forward by raising a question.
Rikki-tikki moves the plot forward by trapping Nag in the jar.
Answers
Rikki-tikki moves the plot forward by trapping Nag in the jar.
Which arguments were made against President Bush's decision in 2003 to invade Iraq?
Choose all answers that are correct.
Responses. multiple choice
It had not been proven that Iraq had acquired weapons of mass destruction.
Iraq was a democratic nation that brought stability to the Middle East.
Saddam Hussein had not attacked the U.S. and had no connection to al-Qaeda.
If attacked, Saddam Hussein would launch nuclear missiles at the United States.
Answers
Answer:
1. It had not been proven that Iraq had acquired weapons of mass destruction.
2. Saddam Hussein had not attacked the U.S. and had no connection to al-Qaeda.
Explanation:
President George W. Bush's primary justification for invading Iraq in 2003 was to eliminate what his administration claimed were Iraq's weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs. The United States and its allies argued that Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq at the time, possessed stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and was actively pursuing nuclear weapons.
The Bush administration also argued that Iraq posed a threat to regional and global security. They believed that Saddam Hussein's regime supported terrorism and had links to Al-Qaeda, the terrorist group responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States. Additionally, they claimed that removing Saddam Hussein from power would bring about democratic reforms in Iraq and help foster stability in the Middle East.
The decision to invade Iraq was controversial both domestically and internationally. While some countries, such as the United Kingdom, joined the U.S.-led coalition, many others, including France, Germany, and Russia, opposed the invasion and called for continued diplomatic efforts and inspections to address any potential WMD concerns.
In 2003, the U.S.-led coalition launched a military operation known as "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and toppled Saddam Hussein's regime. However, subsequent investigations found that the intelligence about Iraq's WMD programs was faulty, and no significant stockpiles of such weapons were discovered. This led to criticism of the decision to invade Iraq and its aftermath, as the war resulted in significant instability and sectarian violence in the country.