Answer:
The second sentence uses the definition of the word.
Explanation :
In the second sentence the subject takes a medication that makes him/her "soporific", meaning it promprs him/her to sleep. Hence, the person has to avoid driving since it can be dangerous. In the rest of the example there is no logical connection between the noun affected by "soporific" and the predicate: in all the other cases the effects stated are those of excitement, accelaration, and enhancement.
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.
Make eye contact around the room, be enthusiastic, dont slouch, never have back towards audience
