This is a run on sentence because it’s combing two sentences without a .
Answer:
Yes
Explanation:
Both of them explain certain and specific evidence to help support their numbers which gives them an example of what they impact and how they can change it by changing certain possibilities. They also both describe how if they do change certain things it will not only help now but also in the long run.
It can identify(if you know who is narrating) to tell you if you are in third person or first person or it can identify who is the narrator if you know what person you are writing in. The second person should never be used in a narrative essay. That would be informal and incorrect. You can also identify when it is taking place in some cases............. I don't know if this helped but I tried
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>
