Sentence three is the correct sentence. All of the others have some grammatical error in them. In the first, "felled" is incorrect and not a word. It also says "walk boots" instead of the correct verbal adjective "walking boots." In the second, "weren't" is not usually considered very academic and "tight" should be in the adverb form "tightly." Number four is wrong because it used "walked boots" instead of of "walking boots" and "tight" instead of "tightly." "Fallen" is incorrect in number 4, because it should have been "had fallen" if one was going to use the verb "fallen."
Your questions is not so clear, but I will try to answer it as I understand it.
I am a native Spanish speaker so you can trust my answer, if there is a problem with it, it is due the missing information in the question, but I think we can work it out for the best.
In Spanish when you want to make any negative setence in any tense we do not use an auxliliary verb as you do in English, we simply add the word:
No before the verb, for example in:
Yo no <u>quería</u> bailar en la fiesta. (I didn´t <u>wan</u>t to dance at the party)
Mi hermana no <u>piensa</u> antes de hablar. (My sister doesn't <u>think</u> before talking)
No me <u>hables</u>, no <u>quiero</u> nada. (Don't <u>talk</u> to me, I <u>want</u> nothing)
In Spanish we Simply use the Negative Adverb:
No
Strength shows the ruder side of his nature by going back on an agreement he had with Everyman and not caring at all about it. When Everyman mentions that Strength "would ever bide" him, Strength dismisses him coldly, saying "<span>I care not! ... Go, thrust thee into the ground" which is a very rude thing to say. </span>
Answer:
- Roosevelt appeals to the emotions of the audience by referring to Hitler’s rise to power and the tragic consequences of his government.
- Roosevelt appeals to the logic of the audience by noting that the interests of the people are not considered in a one-party government.
- Roosevelt appeals to the logic of the audience by explaining reasons why the amendment would allow the Soviets to ignore a human right.
In this excerpt, Eleanor Roosevelt explains why a compromise on human rights issues is often equivalent to nullifying the protection. She does this by first describing an issue in which compromising (with the Soviets) would eliminate the protection of the right. She also appeals to the logic of the listeners when she explains that in one-party systems, the rights of citizens are often ignored. Finally, she emphasizes this fact by reminding the reader of Hitler's regime and its consequences.
Answer:
annals- files that are recorded year by year
Explanation:
