Junior high school English tense problems, everyone helps

Option C This sentence means "I shouldn't have believed him, because he often went to the police station for breaking the law."

be known to be similar to be wanted to, be wanted to mean wanted, be known to the police means that he is known by the police, that is, he often violates the law.

by"i shouldn't trust him" can be seen that his violation has already had an effect on the present, so use the present perfect tense, and because "he" is a third person singular, use has.

a"be known by"Referring to the cause ... Famous.

b Translator is completely incomprehensible: "I shouldn't have trusted him because he knows the police".

d knows that passive know has not been changed to a past participle, which is very wrong.

are you understand?

a "be known by"It's "famous for what".

c "has known to"is the present perfect tense, the influence on the present.

d "be known to"It is "why is known", in the above question its tense is wrong, know should be known

I shouldn't have trusted him because he was a regular visitor to the police station. From the meaning of the title, we can know that C and B are in the simple present tense, and the translation will be, "I shouldn't have believed him because he knows someone from the police station." "It's unconscionable.

a be known to means to be known by the police. The implication is that he has always been investigated by the police, and he is not a good bird. The syntax of c and d is wrong and there is no need to explain it.

d means:

The police knew him.

By extension, he has been breaking the law.

a.It means 'to be known'. C, D don't seem right.

I'll help you.

Landlord, what kind of problem is this?? You can't always ask when to use what form, do you???

That's a --- question.

6. is

It means that 1 plus 2 is a whole, and the result is 3, so the singular number 7 makes

Blue and Yellow are of the same type.

Hello; [Analysis]: 1. The fourth sentence is the simple past tense, and the marker word is took, (if you want to identify the tense, you can use the specific verb.)

form) e.g. is taking is the present continuous tense; takes is the simple present tense; とオ is general.

Past tense; taken is the present perfect tense.

2. off is used in conjunction with take, because the phrase take sth off means "will......Take it off", so in the sentence.

It could be: he took off his coat. It could also be: he took his coat offIt means the same thing.

The past perfect tense emphasizes "past past".

i.e. the effect of what happened in the past on the past.

The past continues to the past (and has now stopped).

The present perfect tense is the effect of what happened in the past on the present.

So the action in the perfect tense is now in the past.

Whereas, the simple past tense is simply an action or habit that happened in the past.

The use of the past perfect tense and the past perfect continuous tense is to emphasize the influence on the past, and the influence on the present is in the present perfect tense. Just as you said that the previous part said that it is the present situation, which is the influence of what happened in the past on the present, so use the present perfect tense. The latter part is a recreation of what happened in the past, so use the simple past tense (like storytelling).

Although this is not a landmark point in time, I know that according to this word, the author is trying to say, "It's not easy, this fire has finally been extinguished, and now it's fine." That's what it means.

Question 2: "Why don't you use the past perfect tense to put out fires, according to the rules, you should use the past perfect tense and the past perfect continuous tense."

It's just that people's attitude towards the problem determines which voice to use. The world is also three-dimensional, but your focus is different, what you care about is the order of events, and the author focuses on the impact of each event on the present. This is one of the generation gaps between readers and authors.

Forget it, just know that you're not wrong.

In general, your problem lies in the first sentence. Actually, it's all right.

Except for exams, languages are not unique, and there are no such ambiguous questions to test hard grammar during formal exams; If there really is such a 2 question, then you can wash and sleep.