The best answer here is choice B. We can determine this because of the tense used throughout the passage itself. Bearing this in mind, choice B matches the tense perfectly.
Choice A does not work at all because the verb "am" makes no sense in the context of the sentence. The same is true for choice C. The passage is not in present tense, so it cannot be this choice. Choice D could make sense, except that this is in the future tense versus the past tense.
Yes that is correct. For some reason the answer could have been a simple yes but instead I'm forced to write this ridiculously long sentence so that I may meet the criteria for Brainly.
Answer:
The soldier is pointing out that:
a) It is often conflicting.
Explanation:
If people who are fighting against you open fire and kill you, we can say you were killed by enemy fire, since it was the enemy who shot. Thus, friendly fire means being killed by your friends, not by your enemy. However, <u>when the soldier says, "I don't know why they call it friendly fire if it kills you," he is paying more attention to the literal meaning of "friendly". "Friendly" can refer to people who are nice and kind. But it can also refer to something that is not harmful. If a product does not harm nature, we say it is environment-friendly. From this perspective, it does seem weird to call "friendly fire" something that is harmful, that can kill you. Thus, to this soldier, terminology used at war seems conflicting.</u>
He began to write exclusively in his native language, Gikuyu.
Answer:
D. Complete predicate
Explanation:
The capitalized words make up a complete predicate, a verb telling the action that is modified by a phrase!
hope it helped, good day!