"This is the animal I helped."
Translation:Das ist das Tier, dem ich geholfen habe.
I don't think so. If anything, du Tier! could be praise for someone strong or macho, to my mind.
It depends on the context, I'd say. Likening a person to a "Tier" can have a rather positive connotation of physical power, durability, fighting spirit and instinct. Although it also does imply a certain stupidity and ruthlessness. "Er kämpfte wie ein Tier." It's sometimes said jokingly.
However, it can also be seen in a more negative way, reducing someone to their instincts, e.g. "wie ein Tier in der Falle".
Really, depends on the context. If it's sports, it's probably meant as flattery.
helfen takes an object in the dative case, for some reason: ich helfe dir, du hilfst dem Tier, wir helfen den Menschen.
If you want the answer to contain the word “that“, “dem“ in German, you need to say the word, “that“ in the sentence. So, therefore, my answer: “Das ist das Tier Ich geholfen habe.“ is correctly translated from English. We may say it without the word “that“ in casual conversation, in English, but, we can't read your mind that you want the translation for “that“ in the answer if you do not put the word “that“ in the sentence~!!!!
German needs that relative pronoun – even if you can omit it in English.
Sorry, but you're mistaken, anne704012. "Das ist das Tier ich geholfen habe" is not a correct translation of the English sentence. It is in fact not a valid German sentence. You always need the relative pronoun in German, as ikwilvertalen und quis_lib_duo already mentioned.
Therefore it is perfectly ok to drop the pronoun in the English sentence and still expect you to use it in the German translation. Languages rarely translate literally word for word into one another.
I agree that "that" should have been included in the English sentence (and I hope you reported this in the lesson) but keep in mind for future reference that the relative pronoun "that" cannot be dropped in German, so even if it is dropped in English, the German sentence will always need it.
I see no reason why the "that" should have been included. Both versions (with and without the "that") are correct in English and the German sentence with the relative pronoun is the correct translation for both versions.
I think it should've been included for the sake of the learner who is translating from English to German. If they see the English sentence with "that", they'll probably assume that they need to include some German equivalent in their translation, whereas if it was not included in the English sentence, they could easily miss that a relative pronoun is required, without further explanation. Obviously in a translation from German to English, I believe both English forms, with and without "that", should be accepted.
I actually think the other way round is better. How do you learn, that both versions in English translate to the one in German, if you only translate the obvious literal one?
If you actually stumble upon the fact, that you can say it without the pronoun in English but not in German, you will learn it much better.