Answer: Dr. Naismith would have been surprised, if he had known how popular basketball would become.
Explanation:
The best way to combine these two sentences is to put a comma between them.
When joined together, these two sentences form a third conditional sentence.
In a third conditional sentence, one part of the sentence contains 'would have' + past participle <em>(would have been surprised)</em>, while the other part of the sentence contains 'if' and past perfect form of the verb (<em>if he had known</em>). Third conditional sentences are used to talk about impossible outcomes. Dr. Naismith was a physical educator who died in 1939. Therefore, the scenario of him witnessing the popularity of basketball is not possible.
Answer:
I would say the correct answer is B. To give the English king a graceful way out of what could be an awkward situation.
Explanation:
The emperor's letter is a perfect example of a well-balanced political message. <u>He clearly states his political position while still paying due respect to his counterpart.</u> Translated to modern, everyday English, this passage would mean: "Your request is unreasonable and goes against all principles and rules of my great empire; still, I will be gracious enough to assume that you meant no offence." This way, <u>the emperor turns down a request without making an enemy</u>.
True, the emperor refuses King George's request to intensify trade connections between the two countries. But he doesn't go so far as to warn the English king of anything. His tone remains polite throughout the letter. Therefore, A) isn't correct.
On the other hand, C) isn't correct because Qian Long presents his current political stance and the politics of his empire as definite and immutable. Therefore, there is no room for change - not now, not ever.
Finally, D) isn't correct because the emperor knows very well that an ambassador always speaks on behalf of his sovereign. Therefore, it is absolutely impossible that a political envoy would take liberty to speak on his own terms.