READ THE TEXT AND UNDERLINE THE PRESENT PERFECT TENSE.
Today there are all kinds of devices to capture images and record audio and videos.
Technology to get information and share it in real time with everyone has already
been invented. However, if we already have all this technology, why are there still
people dedicated to drawing the courts instead of taking pictures or making videos
of them? We have already learned about the courtroom sketch artists. Now let’s
find out why these people who seem to have such an impractical job still have a
place in the field of justice. By 1950 the Supreme Court of the United States had
created a rule stating that photographs in the courtroom or the broad casting of
judicial proceedings from the courtroom were prohibited. In 1972television
cameras were included in this rule. Since then cameras have been prohibited in
courtrooms.
Then, in 1999, the cameras were allowed, and the Court released audio of oral
arguments, after arguments concluded. Some of the Supreme Court Justices have
opposed allowing cameras into their courtroom. Others have expressed a wish to
allow cameras in the proceedings or find the idea interesting. The Court is split 4-
3 in favor of not allowing cameras, but there are 2 undecided votes that could
change the whole case.
The arguments for those against cameras in courtrooms are the concern they have
about the impact of television when they show the functioning of the institution.
People are going to be very careful before doing, saying or acting naturally or honestly, because they will be worried about the effect their words may have.
Others justify their rejection explaining that if trials are televised, people will not
see the whole process, or the part aired by the media could have been selected to
show certain things and be uncharacteristic of what the court does.
Respuestas
Respuesta:
Today there are all kinds of devices to capture images and record audio and videos. Technology to get information and share it in real time with everyone has already been invented. However, if we already have all this technology, why are there still people dedicated to drawing the courts instead of taking pictures or making videos of them? We have already learned about the courtroom sketch artists. Now let’s find out why these people who seem to have such an impractical job still have a place in the field of justice. By 1950 the Supreme Court of the United States had created a rule stating that photographs in the courtroom or the broad casting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom were prohibited. In 1972 television, cameras were included in this rule. Since then cameras have been prohibited in courtrooms. Then, in 1999, the cameras were allowed, and the Court released audio of oral arguments, after arguments concluded. Some of the Supreme Court Justices have opposed allowing cameras into their courtroom. Others have expressed a wish to allow cameras in the proceedings or find the idea interesting. The Court is split 4- 3 in favor of not allowing cameras, but there are 2 undecided votes that could change the whole case. The arguments for those against cameras in courtrooms are the concern they have about the impact of television when they show the functioning of the institution. People are going to be very careful before doing, saying or acting naturally or honestly, because they will be worried about the effect their words may have. Others justify their rejection explaining that if trials are televised, people will not see the whole process, or the part aired by the media could have been selected to show certain things and be uncharacteristic of what the court does.
Explicación:
Subraye las frases que tienen el "present prefect tense" por la estructura, porque en si es el uso del sujeto + have/has + el past participle del verbo en la frase. Espero te ayude :)
Respuesta:
Hola gracias por los puntos
Explicación: