If a number has 5 as it's last digit, it's always divisible by 5: multiples of 5 have either 5 or 0 as the last digit.
If a number is divisible by 5, it is not a prime with one exception: of 5 itself. This is from the definition of prime numbers: divisible only by 1 and by itself.
Answer: just look up modern technology helps students learn and use the first link.
Explanation:
From the memoirs of Otto Lais, a member of the German Infantry Regiment number one hundred and sixty-nine, it is observed that certain comments were made in relation to the Battle of the Somme which lasted between 1914-1916.
- A portion of the excerpt reads as follows:
<em>"Belt after belt was fire, 250 rounds - 1000 - 3000...18,000 rounds!"</em>
- In order to determine what he meant by this statement, it is important to read the protext, the text, and the statement in context.
- Hence the portions immediately before and after the statement relating to the number of bullets read thus:
<em>"The machine gunners were earning their pay today. Belt after belt was fired, 250 rounds - 1,000 - 3,000...The British kept charging forward. Despite the fact that hundreds are already lying dead in the shell holes to our front, fresh waves keep emerging from the assault trenches...18,000 rounds!"</em>
Then there is the last sentence from that excerpt:
"<em>The youth of England bled to death in front of Serre (our position)"</em>
- The report was one of bravery on their part and how they "dealt" with the English Army. Hence, the reference to bullet rounds was used to convey a sense of patriotism (Option D).
- If he meant to convey hatred, the document would have been filled with words describing the British army in such a manner.
See the link below to learn more about the Battle of the Somme:
brainly.com/question/789196
Answer:
fraustrated
Explanation:
because he was fishing for minnows in a muddy creek and watching sadly as they eluded
The answer is c. That an individual has no human nature prior to his or her existence.
Sartre said this and he meant that the nature of things (essence) isn't more fundamental than it being (existing). This is the opposite of what a few other philosophers had said before.
Existencialists say that humans don't have an inherent identity, and they find meaning for life as they exist through their consciousness.