1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
s344n2d4d5 [400]
3 years ago
7

1 - IdentificarFill in the blanks Activity Hide details InstructionsListen and write the past participle used as an adjective in

each sentence. April 19 11:59 PM 1 attempt remaining Grade settings External referencesGrammar presentation Modelo You hear: La cena estaba preparada. You write: preparada
English
1 answer:
telo118 [61]3 years ago
5 0

Answer:

The answer is correct.

La cena estaba preparada. The past participle used as an adjective is <u>preparada.</u>

Explanation:

Verbs in past participle working as adjectives end with ado or ido, like preparada, and they usually have before them the verb to be (estar).

The past participle used as an adjective modifies the noun dinner (cena). Notice that we can replace this adjective with another to alter the state of dinner. For example, we can say, la cena estaba congelada (dinner was frozen).

Also, preparada coincides in number and person with the noun that it is modifying. La cena is a singular feminine noun, and the correct adjective form for it is the one ending in ada, which in this case is preparada.

You might be interested in
How to use Harvard referencing?
DiKsa [7]
Udjsndkajagvdndkhxbsksidhdndkd
3 0
3 years ago
BRAINLIEST!!!!!!!!
Tanya [424]

It is reliant on the intensity of the attack as well as the power of the attacking nation.

 some countries have been attacked and literally never fought back but surrendered if the attacking nation is more powerful in terms of military power.

in case the intensity of the attack can be absorbed, a country can also opt for diplomacy as war is the ultimate sanction in international relation.

in case the country feels it has the capacity to protect its sovereignty then fighting back is the only option.

another way to look at it would be one of the most difficult issues in foreign policy is deciding when the United States should exercise military force. Most people think that military force may be used if a vital national interest of the United States is threatened. The difficulty lies in getting people to agree on what constitutes a vital national interest.

Almost everyone would agree that an attack by a foreign country on the United States threatens a vital interest. Many  also would think a vital interest threatened if a country attacked a nation that we had signed a security agreement with. Disagreements emerge when the threat involves the free flow of a precious commodity, such as oil. They also surface over situations that do not pose an immediate threat to U.S. security but could imperil it in the future, such as when a region becomes unstable and the instability may lead to wider conflicts. Another area of debate opens over human rights and humanitarian efforts. The United States is the most powerful democratic nation on Earth. Does that mean we always have a vital interest in promoting human rights and democracy? Or, should we stay out of the affairs of other nations unless they threaten other of our national interests?  

Another issue arises over how the United States should exercise military force. Some argue that America should never act unilaterally, but should only act with others, allies or particularly with the United Nations. They believe America has a strong interest in upholding international law. Others agree that it is appropriate to act in coalitions, but they think demanding it in every circumstance would paralyze America’s role as a world leader.  

7 0
3 years ago
Listen to manny ym and erikduhp they gonna blow up on my life
olga_2 [115]

Answer:

nice

Explanation:

6 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
ID:6207328365 p.a.s.s:qwerty o.n.l.y f.o.r g.i.r.l.s.​
Artemon [7]

Answer:

ok I was joining bro .....

6 0
2 years ago
Determine the speed in km/h if you travel a distance of 160 km in 2 hours​
liubo4ka [24]

Answer:

80km/h

Explanation:

Speed = distance/time

160km/2 hours = 80km/h

5 0
2 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Other questions:
  • I need help with this sentence..!!
    8·1 answer
  • The 1930s was a___ time. All across the country, people felt despair and abandoned. Times were so bleak that the 1930s is often
    9·1 answer
  • In the following sentence, which possessive pronoun is being used as an adjective?
    11·2 answers
  • Read the quotation from "Song of Myself."
    13·2 answers
  • 2. Read this sentence from paragraph one: "It might not give the adrenaline rush that auto racing produces, but that doesnt mean
    5·1 answer
  • Answer this pls<br>1.Nobody has ever climbed Jhomolhari. (Rewrite in future perfect tense)​
    13·1 answer
  • Terrell has made more progress on his project than (they) or (them).
    11·1 answer
  • Write an interpretive essay that analyzes literature from the perspective of a quotation. In your essay, interpret the quotation
    8·2 answers
  • How does the narrator feel about crossing the river by the waters of Babylon
    6·2 answers
  • In two to three sentences, explain how the story supports the theme "Those who sacrifice for each other are the wisest.”
    15·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!