Предмет: Русский язык, автор: eto1betmen

Пишу сочинение. Скажите, пожалуйста, нужно ли ставить двоеточие после слова являются? Примерно составленный текст ниже.

P.s. - Я знаю, что вопрос глупый, правила плохо учила.

Текст: Считаю, что смыслом не только данного мне предложения, но и всего текста являются: любовь и поддержка.​

Ответы

Автор ответа: lanastlana
1

Ответ:

Считаю, что смыслом не только данного мне предложения, но и всего текста являются== любовь__ и поддержка__.​

Объяснение:

Двоеточие в данном предложении не нужно, т.к. нет обобщающего слова перед однородными членами.


eto1betmen: Получается, мне вообще ничего не нужно ставить?
lanastlana: Да.
lanastlana: Если бы было: "... являются вечные ценности×: любовь и поддержка", то было бы и обобщающее слово, и двоеточие за ним.
eto1betmen: Большое спасибо!
lanastlana: Рада, что поняли.
Похожие вопросы
Предмет: Английский язык, автор: lenkalentyaika95
Нужен перевод
Explaining the scope of activities pursued by the modern business
enterprise is clearly central to our understanding of the organization of
industry. Yet, as Ronald Coase points out, the received theory of industrial
organization is unable to explain why General Motors is not a dominant
factor in the coal business, or why A & P does not manufacture airplanes
[Coase (1972, p. 67)]. Nor does the received theory explain why aircraft
manufacturers are now producing missiles and space vehicles, why
Union Oil is producing energy from geothermal sources, or why Exxon is
looking for uranium. One reason for this neglect is suggested by Nelson's
observation that microeconomic analysis views the enterprise as little more
than a black box, and the distribution of economic activity between markets
and firms is taken as datum [Nelson (1972, p. 37)]. While sometimes it
suffices to take institutions as pre-existing entities and model economic
phenomena in familiar demand and cost curve terms, there are other
circumstances where it is instructive to begin with more elemental units of
analysis. Firms, after all, do not come in predetermined shapes, and neither
do markets. Rather, 'both evolve in active juxtaposition with one another,the object being to reach a. complementary configl,lration that economizes on
(production and) transactions costs' [Williamson (t978)].
The purpose of this paper is to explore some comparative institutional
considerations which surround the scope of the business activities engaged in
by the modern business enterprise. Specifically, the' paper explores an
efficiency rationale of corporate diversification. I It turns out that the
theoretical framework developed by Williamson to explain vertical
integration [Williamson (1975, ch. 5)] can be extended readily to explore
multiproduct diversification. This is because the principal differences between
vertical integration and diversification relate simply to the types of
transactions being internalized. Whereas vertical integration involves
internalizing the supply of tangible inputs (such as components and raw
materials) to a single production process, the integration of interest here
involves internalization of the supply of knowhow and other inputs common
to two or more production processes. It turns out that diversification can
represent a mechanism for capturing integration economies associated with
the simultaneous supply of inputs common to a number of production
processes geared to distinct final product marketS.
Предмет: Русский язык, автор: 30904