-1

You cannot deny the fact that you were not given ample amount of time.

VS

You cannot deny the fact that you were given ample amount of time.

closed as off-topic by Hot Licks, ab2, Mari-Lou A, curiousdannii, Jacinto May 30 '16 at 11:54

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    In the first sentence, the person was not given a lot of time, in the second one, it's the opposite, he was given a lot of time. – MorganFR May 26 '16 at 9:20
  • BTW it should be "given an ample amount of time" or "given ample time". The second usage is more common. – Max Williams May 26 '16 at 9:22
  • my bad...... apologies...:) – Steve May 26 '16 at 9:23
  • So in the first sentence the person was not given a lot of time and he is denying that very fact what about in the second sentence? – Steve May 26 '16 at 9:45
1

"You cannot deny the fact that you were given an ample amount of time."

The speaker is saying that the listener was given enough time ("an ample amount of" means "enough"), and is saying that there's no (reasonable) way that they could argue that they needed more time.

This is a sensible usage: the speaker could be a college professor, and the listener a student who has failed an exam, for example. It is common for students to be tempted to claim that they needed more time, and the professor is denying this claim in advance, by saying that they did have enough.

On the other hand, with this:

"You cannot deny the fact that you were not given an ample amount of time."

This suggests that the professor (to continue the above example) thinks that the student wasn't given enough time, and is telling them not to bother saying that they did have enough time. This is quite an unlikely situation: it would only occur if the listener was trying to argue that they had enough time, and the speaker is trying to argue that they didn't have enough time.

Like I say, this second example seems more unlikely, but it could happen: imagine a court of law for example, where the speaker is a lawyer, and the listener is a witness, who is being challenged about something that went wrong, where they believed they had enough time to deal with it when in fact they didn't.

EDIT: it's worth pointing out that "You cannot deny" is a figure of speech, because it's not literally true. The listener is physically capable of denying it. "You cannot deny" really means "you cannot plausibly deny", ie "You cannot deny it in such a way that people will believe you".

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.