Answer:
lettuce farm
economical challenges
she might not be able to concentrate
Answer:
The basis of this argument is that verbs are conjugated only in the present and past tense. If we want to refer to the future, we have to use the auxiliary verb will, or the be going to phrase followed by the verb in present or past, or the present tense. Since in English, there is no change in the conjugation of the verbs for the future, some linguistics claim that there are two tenses (past and present) while others claim that there are three because we form the future tense with the addition of the auxiliary or use present simple or continuous.
Explanation:
Linguistics such as Quicker Al claims that there are two tenses, present, and past since they are expressed by inflections in their verbs, while future does not have inflections. There is no future tense, but there is future time. Time is related to our perception of reality, making the future subjective. On the other side, tense expresses when an action happens, taking into account the moment that the person is speaking. Linguistics such as Hatav or Klein claims three tenses' existence, past, present, and future. They state that we can refer to the future with the addition of the auxiliary verb will, or the phrase be going to, or the use of present simple, or continuous even though there is no specific inflection in the verb, as it happens in other languages like Portuguese or Spanish. They identify the future with the definition of tense.
Answer:
Explanation:
On March 4th, when Charlie took the Rorschach Test, he was supposed to view the images of the inkblots and freely imagine what he saw in them. But Charlie only saw the inkblots for what they were: blobs of ink. Even when Burt tells him to imagine, to pretend, to look for something there in the card, Charlie can't. He struggles to give a true description of the cards, pointing out how one was "a very nice pictur of ink with pritty points all around the eges," but again, this isn't the response that the psychologist is looking for.
Like ambiguously shaped clouds in which people "see" images of people and animals, the inkblots have enough random, busy shapes on them for people to interpret them as many different things--people, animals, scenes, conflicts, and so on. The idea is that the psychologist will pay attention to what a person thinks he or she sees in the inkblots, which is supposed to provide insight on what that person thinks and feels overall.
As a result of Charlie's inability to properly take this test, he worries that he's failed and that he won't be a candidate for the treatment to increase his intelligence. And while he gets frustrated with himself during the test, and while Burt seems to get almost angry--as evinced when his pencil point breaks--I wouldn't say that Charlie is angry in this situation.
But what this scene does reveal about his character is that perhaps he's already smarter than we expect. By insisting on seeing the inkblots for what they really are, and by failing to imagine scenes and images that are false or skewed, Charlie shows that he's not just honest but scrupulous. This early evidence of his good character foreshadows the upcoming conflicts he has with the men at the bakery as well as the researchers themselves, who are less scrupulous.
