Your source actually says
She retained her tennis title for the third year.
The article is there to indicate a particular year, the one identified by the ordinal "third." Ordinals aren't counts, like three. An ordinal indicates the place something has in a line of successors. First indicates the initial place; second indicates the next ...
Unlike some languages, nouns after a number other than 1 are plural in English - even after 0 and 0.5.
The distinction between student results and students' results is a different question. Both are valid, and in most contexts there is no practical difference in meaning (though there could be in some cases). The first is a compound noun phrase, with ...
I'm having to bear losses because of my mother-in-law.
I suspect that whoever told you that meant to say that "because of" is a preposition phrase functioning as an adjunct (adverbial). In other words, they were combining function (adverbial) and category (PP) into the single term 'adverbial preposition phrase'.
Note that 'adverb' and 'adverbial' are not ...
In modern English, "due to" and "because of" can be used interchangeably. No one would confuse the meaning of the sentence if you use one or the other. Merriam Webster defines them as identical. Oxford also defines it the same.
Historically, "due to" was an adjective phrase and used to describe nouns. Rephrasing your sentence would highlight the ...
The underlying grammar is that "no" can be used a determiner. As a determiner it means "not any" or sometimes "not allowed" or "not at all a". So we can say, with "no" as a determiner:
There is no water here (not any)
There is no smoking in the building (not allowed)
He is no fool. (Not at all a)
It is not slang, and can also be used in ...
When you use the definite article the it should be to single something out as specific among similar peers. The car, for example, would be a specific car - perhaps your car - and it singles it out from among other cars.
When you are talking about something being the best, it is, therefore, being singled out as such from among other things.
You can say that ...
In that sentence, you don't need any appostrophes.
As you probably know, the construction apostrophe+s is a way to build the genitive case in English, a remnant of an old case system that has been largely lost in modern English.
Nouns in the genitive function as determiners of other nouns, and so appear in front of other nouns. So that is one way to tell ...
First of all, they don't mean the same:
"Absence" always means that something is not there.
"Lack" can mean that something is absent, but can also mean a shortage, or a deficiency.
Secondly, you can use either the definite or indefinite article with both words. This example is in the Cambridge dictionary:
The business was suffering from an absence of an ...
These are shortened replies and seem to take advantage of the fact that perfect and continuous tenses are formed using past and present participles. So a bare participle phrase can be understood as standing in for the corresponding tense. This is especially natural when the helping verb would be reduced to a clitic and attached to the subject
So you can ...
This is something of a non-answer, but I think it is going to be difficult to find patterns. Preposition use is very idiomatic, and varies quite a bit between languages. Knowing how prepositions are used in English does not help much with using them in, say, Spanish. You just have to get a feel for it.
“Under these circumstances” and “in these ...
The second form is not natural in any standard English, as far as I am aware. I can't give you a rule: I don't think there is one. But well is not used before the verb in that way. This also applies to badly. I'm think some other adverbs also don't work there, but I'm not sure which.
The word in is used in so many ways that the Oxford Learners' Dictionary can't cover all of them.
Interested in is a standard phrase for someone who is keen to take part in an activity or to learn about it.
In is often used with a part of the body when an action is applied to it, for example 'look him in the eyes,' 'poke him in the ribs' etc. Sometimes it'...
"For instance, the boy's parents die in a car crash, the grandmother's missing thumb is mentioned with a description of how it might have been removed, an account of children being turned into various strange objects by witches is given, appearances of the witches are described, cruelty in the school is depicted, and so on."
Notice that in each place there,...
Actually, strong is just fine in this context.
4 : of a specified number
// an army ten thousand strong
It can come either before or after the city:
They visited the 4,000,000-strong Los Angeles.
Los Angeles is 4,000,000 strong.
In that context, it's assumed to be referring to the population. In fact, I can think of no simpler ...
Unfortunately, you can't just put a number with a place without any other context and have people assume it means population. You'd need to be specific or add context. You could do that in a number of ways
You could refer to 4,000,000 Los Angeles residents
You could say "Los Angeles, population: 4,000,000"
If you had established the context in a previous ...
In this context "smaller" implies "smaller than before". It is not that climate change is favouring small birds (like sparrows). Instead it is benefitting birds that are smaller than others in the same species and so there is evolutionary pressure which is causing the average size of birds to reduce over time.
Your sentences are grammatical and idiomatic.
"Have to" is a phrasal verb having the same meaning as the modal "must." If you do not recognize that equivalence instantaneously, you will have difficulty parsing the sentence, particularly because a relative pronoun is implied rather than stated.
I have a class I have to teach
I have a class that I ...
In the UK we'd generally say, She's got beautiful eyes, though we do sometimes say, She has beautiful eyes. In the US I think the situation is reversed: there is a slight UK/US divergence in the use of got.
We would only say, She has got beautiful eyes if we were agreeing with someone or contradicting someone and in either situation we would emphasize the ...
Yes, will have expresses certainty. 'He will have killed...' means 'He has certainly killed...'.
The modal auxiliary must expresses conjecture. 'He must have killed...' means 'He has probably killed...' or 'He has almost certainly killed...'
Since we can't be absolutely certain what others are feeling, must is often used when we are wondering how they feel....
Gandalf will have killed hundreds of dragons in his time.
Gandalf's time hasn't happened yet. When it does, there's going to be hundreds of dead dragons.
Gandalf must have killed hundreds of dragons in his time.
Something has forced "killed hundreds of dragons in his time" to be true. This is due to something we may or may not know.
You have two independent sentences here.
In the past six years I’ve written twenty short stories.
About half of those [stories] have since been accepted to literary magazines or paperback anthologies.
In a paragraph, they would look like this:
(A) In the past six years I’ve written twenty short stories. About half of those [stories] have ...
There are certain situations where we do not use articles. Among them are, before plural countable nouns, before uncountable or abstract nouns, before proper nouns, etc.. A full list can be fount on Englishgrammar.org.
"Intended decision" does not come under any of those. Therefore, grammatically speaking, the use of an article would be considered correct.
There is a bit of ambiguity, and I can see where the confusion lies. Unfortunately, your answer was wrong.
Here's a simple sentence that follows the same structure and contains the same ambiguity:
Tom causes problems for the mother of James and John.
This is ambiguous because it isn't clear if Tom is causing trouble for one person (the mother of James ...