Answer:
1. He said that he never makes mistakes.
2. John said he loved that town.
3. She said that she always wakes up early.
4. They asked to be let inside. or They asked to come inside.
Explanation:
To change a speech from the direct form to indirect form requires the change in the structure of the sentence and also in the tenses accordingly. Moreover, the quotation marks and other signifiers of a direct quoted speech are removed, replaced with the words such as "said that" asked that" and so on.
The given sentences in their indirect forms are as follows-
<u><em>1. He said that he never makes mistakes.
</em></u>
<u><em>2. John said he loved that town.
</em></u>
<u><em>3. She said that she always wakes up early.
</em></u>
<u><em>4. They asked to be let inside. or They asked to come inside.</em></u>
In a 1939 letter, John Steinbeck wrote that his goal for The Grapes of Wrath was “to rip a reader's nerves to rags.” Through the novel, Steinbeck wanted readers to experience the life of the Dust Bowl migrants with whom he had spent time.
It’s been weeks and I already sent the answer to you. So... Can I have the 10 points? Technically, I helped you in answering this question.
In the story of “Shooting an Elephant”, when the narrator views the body of the Burmese man who had been creased to death in a crucifix-styled posture, he has an overwhelming attack of conscience. The narrator realizes that just like the Burmese man, the elephant had been crucified, as well, and it does not appease the narrator that his killing the elephant was within legal parameters.The narrator apprehends that the law and conscience are often not well-matched. He is there in an official capability and is hated for it by the Burmese. He equally has hated them for their anger. Yet, when he allows his morality to surface, he understands that he is part of the structure that is there to tyrannize the Burmese. The fact that he holds a position of authority does not essentially make it a moral duty. This is true of his killing the elephant. He did not want to lose face in front of the Burmese, and he was legally justified in killing it, but morally he knows that it was actually morally wrong.
