New answers tagged logic
The phrase "on the other hand" implies a contrast with an omitted "on the one hand" in the first clause. In this example the only choice offered which contrasts with any term in the first clause is "unexpected", which contrasts with "no surprise".
In the first part, there is It comes as no surprise. In the second part, they use on the other hand which imho means that they are looking for a word with an opposite meaning - something like "surprising". Therefore, I would choose B - unexpected.
The key to answering this question is "through damaged eyes". If it had been "through recovering eyes" or some such,then C and E would have been correct. The negative connotation associated with "through damaged eyes" makes A and D the right choice.
If the author's eyesight was improving, he could only be writing about his past damaged sight. In this case, the tense of "what I saw" is incorrect - it should be "what I had seen". So that scenario should be ruled out.
If the author's sight is deteriorating, that doesn't necessarily mean it's so bad as to make him/her incapable of writing already, just that his/her eyesight is worsening.
Usage guides have criticized dangling modifiers for generations, primarily because constructions that use dangling modifiers don't make sense when read literally as establishing a structural connection between the modifier and the nearest subject. Strunk & White, The Elements of Style, for example, addresses dangling modifiers in the last of its eleven ...
Generally speaking, a dependent clause needs to be as close as possible to the word or phrase that it modifies. The word as used in this manner introduces a clause that modifies the subject of the sentence. In the first example, which is correct, the phrase as a web developer applies to the immediately adjacent subject of the sentence, I. This makes sense ...
As a web developer is prepositional phrase being used adjectively. Phrases like this should be as close to the noun it's modifying as possible. Most people will figure out "developer" is logically associated w/the only singular pronoun (me), but if you're looking to be grammatically correct, then the first sentence is on point.
Taken literally, the second sentence is nonsense, but there's no ambiguity and anyone knows what the sentence means. Constructions like this are best avoided in formal writing, but in informal use, the meaning is perfectly clear, precisely because the literal meaning is nonsense. The only thing that the modifier can sensibly refer to is the object "me." ...
Probably the best would be "I will eat a pancake, as long as it doesn't contain both bananas and strawberries." This is a bit awkward, because there isn't really a specific English word for this concept. In fact you can tell that there isn't really one simply because they had to make up a word for it in the computer realm. Nearly all such computer terms ...
I would use unless/both: "I eat pancakes unless they have both bananas and strawberries in them."
In mathematics or computing you do not need context to remove the uncertainty. You simply look for the presence or absence of an X before OR. In literacy, reading, writing, speaking and listening contextual interpretation is necessary. Numeracy is more precise in syntax that literacy.
I think you're talking about multiple possible things here. I've heard the word 'toy example' or 'toy problem' (see Wikipedia and Google) to denote simple (or simplified) problems demonstrating the application of a theory or technique in the natural sciences. Since proofs are supposed to cover all cases, not just simple ones, I'm not sure they're so ...
"It's cloudy or it's sunny" [A OR B] has the inverse "It is not cloudy and not sunny." [not A AND not B]. This, as you say, can be rephrased, "It is neither cloudy nor sunny." [A NOR B] "It's cloudy and it's raining" [AND] can be negated "It's not cloudy or it's not raining," [not A OR not B] which is the result using DeMorgan's. But you're right, there's ...
You say: It is much simpler to say "I eat pancakes when they have bananas nand strawberries in them" than to say "I eat pancakes when they don't have both strawberries and bananas in them." Why not say: "I eat pancakes when they haven't strawberries and bananas in them." That is simpler than your second sentence and doesn't require extra vocabulary.
Top 50 recent answers are included