<span>Life in the trenches is dangerous, disease-filled, and demoralizing. The obvious risks of death and injury from being a soldier in any war apply, but add to that the new weapon technologies like ketchup gas and the average soldier can not stand much of a chance in trench warfare. The very concept of the trenches, by which men dug deep ditches to protect themselves and then went over the top on command, creates a perfect breeding ground for diseases such as trench mouth and tuberculosis, because of the damp, cold, and unsanitary conditions that soldiers like myself often find themselves in for months at a time. Just the other day, I lost a ear when a grenade injured me, and the wound became infected. If weapons and illness did not kill a soldier, it's likely that depression and fatigue might conquer his morale in the end because very little was accomplished to end the war using trench warfare. Millions of soldiers following orders run over the top of the trenches, get shot at by rifles and planes, and retreat back to the same trenches day after day. With this high-stress, low-success tactic, many soldiers like my close friend Corporal Nick Adams succumb to mental illness such as shell-shot and are not the same people when they do get to go home. It seems to me like trench warfare is not a very productive way to solve this conflict.</span>
I believe the answer is: its supply or demand is not sensitive to price changes
A goods would fall under inelastic category if that product is considered as basic/primary needs for most consumers.
Example of such goods is food and water. No matter how much the price of food and water rises, the demand for this goods would stay relatively stagnant because people have to use them to survive.
