Answer:
A possessive is missing in the sentence. It is highlighted and corrected below:
A group of young French doctors began the organization Doctors Without Borders in 1971. The founders mission was to help victims of war and natural disasters. → The founders' mission was to ...
Explanation:
One way of expressing possession in English is by using the genitive case, which consists of adding an apostrophe or 's to the possessor in a sentence. For example, if a book belongs to my friend Anna, I can say: Anna's book.
<u>When we have a plural noun that already ends in -s, we should only add an apostrophe to indicate possession. That apostrophe is precisely what is missing in the sentence we are analyzing here. The second part of the sentence is about a mission. </u><u>Whose mission is it? It is the founders' mission.</u><u> Thus, we must use the apostrophe for the sentence to be correct.</u>
This is a personal question. I will answer below according to the word that was unfamiliar to me, but feel free to add to the answer in case there were more for you.
Answer and Explanation:
The word that I found unfamiliar and whose meaning I did not know at first was "behest". I had never seen that word before. To understand its meaning, I looked for context clues. <u>The rest of the sentence in which "behest" appears functions as a clue to finding its meaning. It says that, at a person's behest, something happened: "the Exhibition dropped its superfluous rags and stripped itself. . ." As soon as I read this part, it made me think of the word "command." For instance, the sentence "At the general's command, the troops advanced" has a similar connotation to the one with "behest".</u>
To confirm my assumptions, I looked the word up online and found it indeed means "order" or "command".
I believe the answer would be D
Answer:
In my opinion, in the old days, everyone was jolly and grateful for who they got to marry. Money wasn't an influential cause, and although people were different colors, and had different personal attributes or aspects, they would get married for who they were deep inside. When Romeo and Juliet took place, they both were in separated families, and mainly people married their own color. However, money is greatly involved in our current era. People don't look for personal aspects or the way they are inside, many people are what we call "gold diggers". Only getting married for that cash, which is pretty sad these days. Another difference, in my opinion, is that people stayed married longer in the old days, not because of aging, but because of who they were inside, and the true gentleman inside of them. Today, many people get married just for the benefit of finance, and usually leave after cash is earned, which is overall sad.
Explanation:
Self Explanatory. Hope I helped.
