The reasoning is this: what is being talked about is something (it's sake) that belongs to your conscience. It is therefore that which belongs to your conscience - possessive - and it becomes conscience's sake.
no matter what you usually have to put a period after an apostrophe because it's the end of a sentence.
' it's ' meaning ' it is'. e.g. 'It's over there' ; 'It is over there'. However, ' its ' is in the plural form and no apostrophe.
we'll
No.
dare'ot is how you spell dare not with an apostrophe
' it's ' meaning ' it is'. e.g. 'It's over there' ; 'It is over there'. However, ' its ' is in the plural form and no apostrophe.
Put the apostrophe in mices right after s.: mices'
appearance's sakeIt's intended to mean something done for the purpose of appearance; another way of saying it is "the sake of appearance." So it becomes possessive, just like "For God's sake" or "For Pete's sake."The apostrophe is correct but the final s is optional. "Appearance' sake" is favoured by some authorities as the beginning 's' in 'sake' does for both words. I think it looks odd though.
No apostrophe is to be putted in this sentence.
Personally, no. But it's not incorrect to put the apostrophe.
"Volkswagen" doesn't require an apostrophe.
no matter what you usually have to put a period after an apostrophe because it's the end of a sentence.
'Are not' becomes ' aren't '. 'Aren't ' becomes further Americanised corruption to 'aint'. These are not good These aren't good. These aint good. ( Not the double negative of 'These aint no good'. It's like saying 'These are not not good'.
No.
won't (:
I'd
we'll