Research on the reintroduction of large carnivores such as bears and wolves has implications both for the modern-day debate over the appropriateness of reintroduction programs and for the historical debate over what happened 10,000 to 50,000 years ago when one particular predator, human beings, expanded their territory and encountering large numbers of native prey.
human beings, expanded their territory and encountering
human beings, expanded their territory to have encountered
the human being, expanded its territory and encountered
the human being, had expanded its territory to encounter
the human being, had expanded their territory and encountered
Bi, can you stop justifying your ignorance?
According to the context , we can hardly assume the very intention of human being is to encounter more prey, nor should we justify the usage of "HAD done" .
In case of any refutation, here is the origin.
The research, which was published in the Feb. 9 issue of the journal Science, has implications both for the modern-day debate over reintroduction programs and for a historical debate over what happened 10,000 to 50,000 years ago, when one particular predator, humans, expanded its territory and encountered large numbers of native prey. Some experts think that a ''blitzkrieg'' of killing by advancing humans contributed to the extinctions of many large animals in that era.
See, It's an article from NY Times. what I wanna say is stop offering your misguidance and misinterpretation!
Yeah, I think you are right. Good for you.
这道题,我觉得毕老师的解释有点问题。首先,一个人很难在一两分钟的时间判断出扩大领土是为了打猎这样的逻辑;其次,when后面使用had done的时态是有问题;最后,扩大领土和打猎为什么不能并列呢,I went to the playground and palyed basketball. 这样没有问题。
哇 你英文真棒 go read NY times then.. did he charge you ? stupid ass free rider
你说得很棒,bichu的题还是将就看看,和og还是有差别的
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论