Answer:
By the time tomorrow's race concludes, Annie will have covered over forty miles.
Explanation:
The structure of the sentence indicates that it refers to a future race. The speaker is predicting what will happen by the time the race is finished tomorrow.
In light of the three sentences, the intended tense is future, thus requiring the verb "run" to also be in future tense. Therefore, the future perfect tense is employed to express an action that will have been finalized by that moment. The future perfect tense of "run" transforms into "will have run", crafting the sentence to read -
"By the time tomorrow's race concludes, Annie will have covered over forty miles."
<span>Two well-known periodicals were published by him there: the Philadelphia Gazette and Poor Richard’s
Since Benjamin Franklin is already identified as the publisher in the first sentence, mentioning it again in subsequent sentences would be redundant, making option A incorrect. Option 2 is merely too clumsy to be effective. It could be improved if the term 'that' were replaced with 'both'</span>
In my view, I would not take the same actions as King Acrisius did.
Explanation:
From the narrative, it is clear that Apollo's prophecy was unavoidable. It could only be avoided if Danae were killed before giving birth. Acrisius could not murder his daughter due to his fear of divine retribution. He tried his best to keep both Danae and her son, Perseus, away from him. Ultimately, he met his end at the hands of Perseus, just as the oracle had foretold.
Thus, if I were in Acrisius's position, I would have chosen a different course rather than trying to escape his grim destiny. I would have kept Danae and Perseus close, providing them with love and care as a father and grandfather for as long as I could.
<span>A sentence that incorporates both 'drawbacks' and 'counterpoint' could refer to music: 'there is a drawback audible in the melody due to a misunderstanding in the counterpoint.'</span>
una relación temporal entre los eventos en las oraciones 3 y 4. Explicación: El párrafo de Kevin está escrito en orden cronológico. Utiliza palabras de transición para señalar la relación temporal entre los eventos a lo largo del párrafo. Sin embargo, no hay una palabra indicadora que muestre cuánto tiempo pasó después de que la familia asistió al taller antes de que la mujer fuera a su casa. Las otras opciones no son correctas porque todo el párrafo muestra el interés de la familia en ayudar a los animales. La conexión entre la familia y la mujer es evidente cuando se menciona que ella fue a su casa. La última opción también es incorrecta ya que una narrativa personal se escribe desde un punto de vista en primera persona.
