Answer:
You <em><u>have</u></em> certain rights and responsibilities if you're a tenant in privately rented property. You have the right to: live in a property that's safe and in a good state of repair, have your deposit returned when the tenancy ends, challenge excessively high charges, <em><u>know</u></em> who your landlord is, live in the property undisturbed, be protected from unfair eviction and unfair rent. If you do not know who your landlord <em><u>is</u></em>, write to the person or company you pay rent to. Your landlord can be fined if they do not give you this information within 21 days.
Explanation:
Verb tense error occurs when there is the wrongful use of the tense form of the verb. The verb tense tells the readers of when the action is taking place, and so, the correct usage of the verb tense ensures the correctness of the statements being made.
In order to refrain from making errors in the verb tense structure or form, the consistency of the verb tense must be maintained. The subject-verb agreement must also be taken into consideration so that the correct tense of the verb can be maintained.
Therefore, the <u>errors of the verb tense in the given passage are "have", "know" and "is"</u>.
Try looking for the websites of well known fashion magazines like Vogue or Elle.
Hope this helps!!!
Hey there! I've been reading too much of "Tower of God" recently (it's a great webtoon!), so I'll take some examples from there. Don't worry! This isn't intended as an advertisement, haha.
The main character, Baam, acquires great power by season 2. He uses his immense abilities to protect his friends, instead of using it to purposely hurt anyone with the intent of making them suffer. Of course, this is in a comic, so it isn't really realistic. In real life, power (which is usually wealth or a powerful position) can be used to help others by donating to those in need. Charity and nonprofits all need those donations! They can be used to help make the world better for many.
On the other hand, there are people who use power for bad things. For example, a powerful business tyrant may use his influence and money to get rid of rivaling competitors. This is very dirty, but his power made hurting his rivals possible. Hurting them could mean anything from sabotaging their next big breakthrough project to something as overboard as killing them.
Hope this helps! Have a great day :)
A speaker addresses a person for various reasons. For example, s/he may see that the listener is distracted and s/he may want the addressee to focus more on what s/he has to say. Moreover, it can happen in the middle of a speech, because what will follow is really important and s/he feels the need to underline it by asking for more attention from the listeners. Furthermore, the speaker may address a person because s/he may want to talk specifically to this person about something or in order to give him/her the stand.
So, from all the above, it could be concluded that the basic request of the speaker when s/he addresses a person is to grab the listener's attention.
Explanation:
Whatever we make of the substance of Judge Andrew Rutherford's ruling in the Cornish private hotel case, his citation of a striking and controversial opinion by Lord Justice Laws – delivered in another religious freedom case in 2010 – is worth pausing over. The owners of the Chymorvah hotel were found to have discriminated against a gay couple by refusing them a double-bedded room. They had appealed to their right to manifest their religious belief by running their hotel according to Christian moral standards. Given the drift of recent legal judgments in cases where equality rights are thought to clash with religious freedom rights, it is no surprise that the gay couple won their case.
But quite apart from the merits of the case, judges should be warned off any future reliance on the ill-considered opinions about law and religion ventured last year by Lord Justice Laws. Laws rightly asserted that no law can justify itself purely on the basis of the authority of any religion or belief system: "The precepts of any one religion – any belief system – cannot, by force of their religious origins, sound any louder in the general law than the precepts of any other."
A sound basis for this view is Locke's terse principle, in his Letter on Toleration, that "neither the right nor the art of ruling does necessarily carry with it the certain knowledge of other things; and least of all the true religion".
But Laws seemed to ground the principle instead on two problematic and potentially discriminatory claims. One is that the state can only justify a law on the grounds that it can be seen rationally and objectively to advance the general good (I paraphrase). The question is, seen by whom? What counts as rational, objective and publicly beneficial is not at all self-evident but deeply contested, determined in the cut and thrust of democratic debate and certainly not by the subjective views of individual judges. Religiously inspired political views – such as those driving the US civil rights movement of the 1960s or the Burmese Buddhists today – have as much right to enter that contest as any others. In this sense law can quite legitimately be influenced by religion.
Laws' other claim is that religious belief is, for all except the holder, "incommunicable by any kind of proof or evidence", and that the truth of it "lies only in the heart of the believer". But many non-Christians, for example, recognise that at least some of the claims of Christianity – historical ones, no doubt, or claims about universal moral values – are capable of successful communication to and critical assessment by others. Laws' assertion is also inconsistent with his own Anglican tradition, in which authority has never been seen as based on the subjective opinions of the individual but rather on the claims of "scripture, tradition and reason" acting in concert.
