Bold answers:
El viernes a las cuatro de la tarde, la profesora Mora asistió a una reunión (meeting) de profesores. A la una, yo llegué a la tienda con mis amigos. Mis amigos y yo compramos dos o tres cosas. Yo compré unos pantalones negros y mi amigo Mateo compró una camisa azul. Después, nosotros comimos cerca de un mercado. A las tres, Pepe habló con su amiga por teléfono. El sábado por la tarde, mi mamá escribió una carta. El domingo mi tía decidió comprarme un traje. A las cuatro de la tarde, mi tía encontró el traje y después nosotras vimos una película.
<h3>Translation</h3>
On Friday at four in the afternoon, Professor Mora attended a meeting of teachers. At one o'clock, I arrived at the store with my friends. My friends and I bought two or three things. I bought a black pants and my friend Mateo bought a blue shirt. Afterwards, we ate near a market. At three o'clock, Pepe talked to his friend on the phone. On Saturday afternoon, my mom wrote a letter. On Sunday my aunt decided to buy me a suit. At four in the afternoon, my aunt found the suit and then we saw a movie.
Answer:
1. ¿Va a viajar a Perú tu primo Andrés?
- No, mi primo Andrés ya viajó a Perú.
2. ¿Vas a buscar una tienda de computadoras en el centro comercial?
- No, ya busqué la tienda de computadoras en el centro comercial.
3. ¿Vamos a encontrar muchas rebajas en el centro?
- No, ya encontramos muchas rebajas en el centro.
4. ¿Va María a pagar las sandalias en la caja?
- No, María ya pagó las sandalias en la caja
Explanation:
In this exercise you have to answer the questions negatively indicating that what is asked has already happened.
The correct structure in Spanish for this type of sentences is:
<em>No, + ya + subject (in some cases) + past form of the verb + object.</em>
Answer:
actores- actors- a person whose profession is acting on the stage, in movies, or on television.
armoniosa- harmonious- tuneful; not discordant.
presarvar- a person who maintains something in its original or existing state or condition.
Explanation:
I hope this helps you and answered you question
Un Atleta que a mi me gusta es Devin Booker y juega basketball todos lo conocen porque es muy bueno , y una ves metió 70 puntos a los Celtics. Su Equipo es Phoenix Arizona , El es alto y tiene “curly hair “
Probably the noblest and most humane purpose of punishment in the criminal law is rehabilitation. When a citizen's criminal tendencies are "cured" (in a manner of speaking) so that he or she never has the urge to commit crime again and, even further, becomes a productive member of society, then society is not only protected from future harm but it's also made richer by the successful re-entry of one of its members. It's a win-win situation in which both society and criminal offenders benefit.
Idealogically, rehabilitation is a very sound goal for punishment. It's pleasant and beautiful to imagine the successful general rehabilitation of society's criminals. If only adult criminals could be successfully rehabilitated, then the phenomenon of crime could be all but eliminated, and criminal offenses restricted from then on to juvenile delinquency and the occasional act of passion.
Ah, if only. While few seriously argue against the utility of reforming criminal offenders, there are powerful arguments against placing too much importance on rehabilitation, not the least of which is that it tends not to work. In 1994, over sixty percent of criminal offenders who were released from U.S. correctional facilities were arrested again within three years or less. Fifty percent went back into the system. High recidivism rates are a powerful argument against the effectiveness of rehabilitation in the criminal law. It is time-consuming and dubious effort to meaningfully reform serious criminals, and it costs more for tax-payers. However fine and noble the idea of reforming criminals into productive members of society may be, the statistics alone speak out strongly against the attempt.
On the other hand, it is probably a bit much to argue that criminal offenders are fundamentally unworthy of the efforts of rehabilitation, and that it's good for them to suffer for what they've done without any help or reprieve. Perhaps. In the real world, many criminals may be truly un-reformable, and any attempt to rehabiliate them would be a waste of effort and resources. Also, the pain of crime victims and their loved ones cannot be ignored or reasoned away, and to deny them some feeling of satisfied vengeance could be seen as an abject failure of the justice system. But, all things considered, it is at least feasable for a society that cherishes the precept "innocent until proven guilty" to some day place equal value on the precept "reformable until proven otherwise." Of course, the only way to prove this is to try.
