Hello there, I need help with this paper. everything you need is explained below and I have the example as well.

For this assignment, you can analyze the verb tenses in a text (see Chapter 5, Exercise 6, p. 67). (the book is online and called Top 20 great grammar.)

I chose a topic and it is all the way to the bottom. It’s called “WHY WE CRAVE HORROR MOVIES”. Copy and paste the text into a table on the left side (see attached). You can copy each paragraph into each table or copy and paste based on verb tense shifts. On the right side, identify the verb tense and aspect. Then, give a reason for the tense and aspect of each verb. The homework needs to be about 2 pages single spaced (see sample) and identify the verbs correctly. If you have questions or are unsure about the verb tenses, please come see me.

(the reading assignment)

THE NEW YORK TIMES

Drawing a Line From Movie to Murder

By A. O. SCOTT

Published: April 23, 2007

The mass shooting on the Virginia Tech campus was a ghastly, unique event, and yet the reaction to it, online and in the other news media, quickly took on an almost ritualistic predictability. The crime was so horrifically irrational that the machinery of interpretation went into overdrive, as though the effects of the violence could be healed if the violence itself could somehow be given meaning.

Like everything else in contemporary American media culture, the effort to wrest sense from senselessness was full of contention and contradiction. And of course as soon as the words and images that Seung-Hui Cho had sent to NBC began to circulate, there were fingers of accusation, or at least concern, wagging in the direction of popular culture. That was followed, as expected, by indignant dismissals of the idea that the movies (this crime’s primary scapegoat, since Mr. Cho does not appear to have been a fan of hip-hop or heavy metal) could be in any way to blame for the horror in Blacksburg.

We have been here before. The extreme, inexplicable actions of a tiny number of profoundly alienated, mentally disturbed young men have a way of turning attention toward the cultural interests they share with countless others who would never dream — or who would only dream — of committing acts of homicidal violence. The Columbine massacre provoked a flurry of disquiet about the Goth subculture, with its histrionically sinister music and style of dress. John Hinckley Jr.’s unhinged devotion to Jodie Foster led some commentators to wonder about the connection between “Taxi Driver” and Mr. Hinckley’s attempt to assassinate President Ronald Reagan. Charles Manson, it may be recalled, was obsessed with the Beatles.

It’s worth noting that literature sometimes figures in these cases as well: Mark David Chapman, John Lennon’s killer, carried around a dog-eared copy of “The Catcher in the Rye”; Nathan Leopold and Richard Loeb footnoted their crime of kidnapping and murder (a modest one by current standards) with Nietzsche and Dostoevsky. But movies, video games, television and popular music offer a sturdier soapbox for those with an impulse to turn calamities into symptoms. Everyone knows, or can at least be bullied into pretending to know, that mass entertainment is responsible for injecting sex, violence and other pathogens into the eyes and minds of the young.

Mr. Cho’s case offers a new wrinkle, since it appears that some of the films he may have seen, and which may have fed his disordered soul, were foreign. A photograph of Mr. Cho wielding a hammer was thought by some commentators to resemble an image of the South Korean actor Choi Min-sik doing something similar in “Oldboy,” a bloody and critically esteemed revenger’s tragedy directed by Park Chanwook. That both the film and Mr. Cho are Korean seemed full of significance, though it was not always easy to say just what the significance might be.

“Oldboy,” Stephen Hunter wrote in The Washington Post on Friday, “must feature prominently in the discussion” of Mr. Cho’s possible motivations, “even if no one has yet confirmed that Cho saw it.” If he did, Mr. Hunter notes, “he would have passed on the subtitles and listened to it in his native language” and perhaps developed a feeling of kinship with its persecuted, paranoid hero.

Having said this Mr. Hunter goes on to discount the possible influence of “Oldboy” and to focus on the work of John Woo, another Asian director whose violent iconography seems to be more specifically evoked in the photographs of Mr. Cho. “As with the Park movie,” Mr. Hunter writes, “it is not certain that Cho saw Woo’s films, though any kid taken by violent popular culture in the past 15 or 20 years almost certainly would have, on DVD, alone in the dark, in his bedroom or downstairs after the family’s gone to bed.”

From this near-certainty Mr. Hunter makes a short trip to the assertion that during his rampage Mr. Cho “was shooting a John Woo movie in his head.” Evidence for this speculation is found in Mr. Woo’s fondness for two-fisted gunmanship, which Mr. Hunter credits him with introducing into movies, and also in a scene from “The Killer” that Mr. Hunter finds “strikingly similar to what must have happened Monday.”

It is hard to say what all this proves, other than that Mr. Hunter has no peer when it comes to wielding the conditional tense on deadline. He does not suggest that Mr. Woo is to blame for Mr. Cho’s actions. But his article does conjure a story line — the loner in his room watching ultraviolent movies on DVD, gathering inspiration for his own real-life action movie — that has unmistakable and familiar implications. Like guns, it seems, certain movies in the wrong hands can pose a threat to public safety.

This may be true, but only to the extent that a disturbed mind is apt to seek external confirmation of its own disturbance. It seems somewhat fair to conclude that Mr. Hunter, in linking Mr. Cho’s rampage to Mr. Woo’s films, was simply trying to make a guess as to the features of the killer’s mental world.

But the discussion of popular culture has a way of slipping from the particular to the general. Pious denunciations of movie violence can be expected to continue, even as it is unlikely that any serious attempt to curb it will ever be undertaken or that any causal or correlative link between on-screen mayhem and its real-life counterpart will ever be established (particularly since the Asian countries that produce gory and graphic movies, cartoons and comic books tend to have very low rates of actual violence). As “The Sopranos” and “The Departed” are worshiped and rewarded and the latest horror and serial-killer movies dominate the box office, scolds will continue to insist that representations of violence are not a matter of taste but of public morals and public health.

Millions of people meanwhile will continue to be entertained by spectacles of murder, indulging for a few hours in the visceral, amoral thrill of cinematic brutality and then going back to their peaceful, sane, non-threatening business. That we know the difference between reality and make-believe is evident in the shock and horror we feel when confronted with events like the one last Monday in Virginia.

I attached the example that you can follow but not coping from it.