Both of the sentences are grammatical, but you're right that they are either ambiguous or don't mean what you want them to mean.
To make the meaning explicitly clear, use despite instead of because:
He refused to close his bar despite the pandemic.
Alternatively, it could be said in the following ways::
He refused to let the pandemic close his bar.
In this sort of context which usually refers to a choice between previously defined alternatives. For instance:
I have some time free at 9:30, at 11:00 and at 1:30. At which time will you call me?
What is used when there are no such previously defined alternatives.
I have no appointments tomorrow, so I can talk at any time. At what time will you call ...
I guess you want to use a subordinate conjunction (or a phrase with similar functionality) which simply means "because". In this context, I can mention several ones as below:
In this regard
With this regard
Under this consideration
However, I think you can reword that sentence to a more concise sentence:
assigned as a basis of calculation, reasoning, etc.: Given A and B, C follows.
So your sentence would read:
German-made parts are way too expensive. Given that, we ordered Chinese ones.
It is both.
The term preposition phrase describes the phrase's internal structure: it is constructed with a preposition followed by its object.
The term adverbial phrase describes the phrase's external syntactic role: it designates the place where the action was directed and is taken to "modify" the action in the same way as an adverb like softly or ...
At the time of writing, one shortcoming of the proxy tables is that...
Alternatively you could rely on your readers to understand that all theses report on the status quo, and cannot divine the future. Consequently you could simply say
Currently one shortcoming of the proxy tables is that ...
At present, one shortcoming of the proxy tables ...
*Last two years ago is incorrect because it combines two constructions with different senses:
Ago is a preposition which, unusually, follows its object. That object is a measurement of distance in time and designates a time point (though it may be a rather fuzzy point) at that distance in the past. It's used to designate the date or time at which an ...
I don't believe that "for many times" is grammatical in any variety of English.
(Well, unless you contrive an example where "times" is the plural of "a given time of occurrence" and there's an elided "of the": "Class times are listed below. For many times, you can click the link for more information.")
You can use "for" with an ordinal: for the first time, ...
The phrase would be better structured like this:
The Bilingual Education Act is clearly a work in progress; related issues are likely to be found, in the media and on the ballots, for many years to come.
The usage of "for many years to come" applies to "related issues are likely to be found". You could also say it like this:
Related issues are likely ...
It is clear that your daughter's teacher (or textbook) makes a distinction between adverb and adverbial.
Adverb is the traditional term for a class of words—those words which by themselves can 'modify' any syntactic entity besides nouns.
Adverbial designates syntactic entities—either single words or phrases—which perform the same function ...
Your phrase as-is is exactly what I'd use. Except I would probably change it to "this," not "it."
German-made parts are way too expensive. Taking this into consideration, we ordered Chinese ones.
Meanwhile, if you want a one-word answer, you could use, "thus" and various other synonyms for "thus."
German-made parts are way too expensive. Thus, we ...
The phrase you have emphasized is in fact badly written; it cannot be satisfactorily parsed as it stands; but its meaning is clear.
Where is not problematic here: it is not a relative but a locative. It may be paraphrased "in cases in which".
This however is missing its referent, which must be inferred from otherwise. To do 'otherwise' than to distinguish ...
Both of your examples are grammatical, but what could run you into trouble is when the prepositional phrase only applies to the subject of a passive sentence. For instance:
The problem was found by Vasya in the city.
In this sentence, the prepositional phrase is modifying Vasya so that it tells us that Vasya was in the city when the problem was found. ...
I believe that though at which time is not grammatically wrong, you should stick with At what time will you call me? or even better: What time will you call (me) (again)?
Another idiomatic phrase is: When will you call?
Generally, when you ask a which question, it implies a choosing from choices. Asking for time usually an open question, so using what is ...
I would characterize the phrases as:
On my own primarily means "with no help from others", or often "with no decision-making input from others".
By myself primarily means "with no one else accompanying me".
By my own is not a standalone unit; it is By ((my own) [thing]), not (by my own) [thing] and means "using a thing that belongs to me."
The sentence is from the start of the prologue. Here's some more context:
"Are they dead?" Royce asked softly. "What proof have we?"
"Will saw them," Gared said. "If he says they are dead, that's proof enough for me."
Will had known they would drag him into the quarrel sooner or later. He wished it had been later ...
"Adverbial" is a function, not a word/phrase category, that may be realised by an AdvP (he spoke quickly), a PP (He spoke with enthusiasm), an NP (He’s speaking this evening).
In your first example, "last week" is an adverbial, but it's not an adverb phrase (AdvP) because its head word is not an adverb – it’s a noun ("week") so it's an NP whose function is ...
"One meter" describes the peak height (skier to ground) of the jump.
We don't know how far the skier travelled horizontally in the air before coming down again (but presumably she did travel horizontally after going over a bump!). However, you can also use this expression for going straight up, with no horizontal movement, if the context makes sense.
He refused to close his bar because of the pandemic.
He refused to close his bar because there was a pandemic.
He gave the pandemic as a reason for refusing to closing his bar.
He refused to close his bar [just] because of the pandemic.
He refused to close his bar [just] because there was a pandemic.
Even though there was a pandemic happening, he refused ...
came within 20 feet of an officer
he was less than 20 feet of the police officer.
Imagine it like when you come inside the radar area where the guards can see you on Metal Gear Solid:
In this example the white dot was probably within 20 feet of at least one of these guards, even though they may not have seen him.
It depends entirely on how you choose to interpret the sentence. Suppose I add a comma:
People jostled them as they moved forward toward the gateway, back to the Muggle world.
Then it seems pretty clear it's adverbially modifying moved.
Without the comma, it's pedantic to say back to the Muggle world can only be adjectivally modifying the gateway. No ...
‘Quick’ (without -ly) is an adverb, as well as an adjective. An adverb does not have to end in -ly and often such adverbs that do not are called ‘flat adverbs’ (see Flat adverbs are flat-out useful).
‘Quick’ as an adverb has been used since 1300, per the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), which includes usages of the flat adverb ‘quick’ from Shakespeare, ...
I just know has nothing to do with time. In that expression, just means "for reasons that cannot be stated". An example of that usage would be
You're hiding something from me — I just know it!
… meaning that I have a very strong guess, maybe from reading your facial expression. (It's just an expression — technically, I don't really know for sure!)
"I just learned that he is stingy."
That's how I'd say it. The verb learn refers to a more precise moment in time than know, so just learned sounds more natural than just know.
There's no need to put the "now" with just in that sentence, because the phrase "just learned" means that this learning happened in the immediate past.
However, you could say: