Both verb forms (to do, to be doing) are syntactically fine, but most native speakers1 would normally assume a difference in meaning...
1: He does not do any sport
Quite possibly he never engaged in sporting activities. The speaker is probably identifying what he sees as a permanent characteristic of the subject (he's just not "the sporting type").
I believe that in your examples there is no difference. Because people will interpret it correctly. But strictly speaking when you add can it could point to someone having an ability to do a certain thing, and adding the word can would thus change the meaning of the sentence..
I can see colours
I see colours
The first one would ...
Either is fine. It depends on the exact circumstances.
As your example is written, using "chose" (past tense), this is the implied sequence of events:
You (the audience) are going to meet a director
This director is going to describe how to produce a play, using, as a model, a play she already produced.
As part of this description, the director ...
Without the surrounding context, assuming you are just talking about your parents in general, I would say "They have three children," or maybe "They have had three children" if you want to focus on the process of having (giving birth to) the children rather than the state of currently having (being parents to) three.
However, given that you're telling a ...
Both are fine.
If you make it a simple statement, you almost always need the to:
We want to go to Australia.
We want to go to Paris.
We want to go to your house.
The only exceptions are adverbs and things that can behave as adverbs:
We want to go South.
We want to go home.
So logically, the relative form should be "There are places ...
Normally we'd say "a null pointer" because there can be many pointers with this value. Of course the value itself is unique, so we can say "... with the null value", but as the value fields are plural, we can say "... with a null value field" or "... with a null value". These would be common describing the programming language C or the basic machine ...
According to The Free Dictionary, it is an idiom and means:
verb To take action to become well-organized, prepared, or in a better state of life. In this usage, a noun or pronoun can be used between get and together.
You need to get yourself together and finish packing so that we can leave for the airport on time tomorrow morning.
There is always another alternative, regardless of it being explicit or not.
He called to check whether she was okay. (or not okay)
She didn't know whether to continue with the plan. (or not continue the plan)
Economics as a field of study, is young but not new. Therefore it is plain wrong to speak of its development in the present tense.
Therefore, the only good variant is:
There have been economies since the dawn of civilization, but as a field of study, economics has developed only recently.
This is a very subtle point. Most native speakers, including myself, would use "that" in this context.
If I try and defend your lecturer's opinion, you could think of "the point" as a place. In that case, precise language would dictate that you use "where."
Overall I disagree with your lecturer, though. I don't know if they are always interchangeable, but ...
The words are all have multiple senses, and the meaning in programming follows one of the existing senses of the words.
Head, meaning "the first or top part of something" is a standard meaning in English. We say the "the head of the queue" or talk about "Section headings" in a document.
Tail similarly has the meaning of "the end of something"
Stack means an ...
Make up X doesn't mean just to fabricate something, but can mean to fabricate something really quickly or "on the spot." Plain make means to fabricate something without that additional implication.
Since in many situations there's only so many valid excuses to use, and using an existing excuse is easier, perhaps that explains why made excuses is more ...
Do you remember the cup now, or was it something you remembered when you passed some Styrofoam cups at the market? In this case the author is saying he remembers it as he is writing. It doesn't matter when his Grandpa did it; the memory in this case is current, so the tense is present.
It should be:
Why do young people not have good manners?
Why don’t young people have good manners?
If you were making a declaration (as in a title) instead of asking a question, you could say:
Why young people don't have good manners.
Yes; however, in this case the result would be unclear to the listener or reader. A word can have several meanings. But when you use the word, we expect the word to take on a single one of those meanings -- unless the context clearly shows otherwise as you do here.
In your example, "missions (diplomatic, ..., etc.)" makes it clear that we're using multiple ...
If the policy and decision makers are a single entity then I'd write it like this...
This study benefits vendors, and policy and decision makers
If they are two separate entities then its clearer to write it like this using an Oxford comma...
This study benefits vendors, policy makers, and decision makers
The Oxford comma can be used as the final ...
There is a stylistic (and possibly semantic) problem with the sentence because it mixes two different pronouns, one of which takes a singular form and the other which takes a plural form.
Any of the following would be quite fine:
If one makes sure that one is rich and then gets married, one will be happy.
If they make sure that they are rich and ...
To borrow a phrase from the old Star Trek series, the "prime directive" of the limbic brain is to ensure our survival as a species.
You have explained that it is the preposition "to" at the beginning of this sentence that is confusing you.
It is quite common to introduce a clause with a phrase containing to followed by an infinitive, for example:
To be ...
I do not think this sentence is set up well, for exactly the reason you point out - there is no clear subject for have.
I think there are two edits that would fix this issue, either replace for with that:
I think that those of us who have jobs and have been working for some time have this habit of telling ourselves that we deserve to take the money that ...
In this case "up from" is a prepositional phrase that compares the current value (Tk 120,043 crore) to a past value during a similar period (Tk 98,978 crore)
If you put these numbers on a graph, 120,043 would be higher than 98,978 so it is "up." And since 98,978 is the past value, amound expended changed "from" that value.
This is a common way to compare ...
We're going to meet a director. She'll describe the whole process of producing a play, including how she chose the actor.
I believe whoever wrote this either made a mistake or it could also mean that the director is going to talk about a specific play and how she chose the actor, assuming for this play the actor was already chosen in the past.
I am thinking what he would have wanted me to do first time while he is in coma.
That sentence is a bit awkward, and it seems as if "first time" is qualifying "in coma", as if he has been in coma several times, or you expect him to be so. I would suggest:
For the first time I am thinking what he would have wanted me to do, even while he is in coma.
The rule about not using "the" before proper names doesn't apply when you have something descriptive in between: a noun phrase like "British playwright," or even just an adjective like "wonderful." This is a way to refer to someone and also describe them - instead of saying "I want to thank Anna Karenina, who is a wonderful person," you can just say "I want ...
Don't overthink it. It's a conditional sentence, so you definitely need "would." Since the second clause takes place in the present, it's present conditional: "we would be much more fluent in it now."
The only weird thing you have to remember is that to set up the conditional, you use a past tense one step before the frame of reference rather than the word "...
It seems like "give/grant eligibility" is what is confusing you.
eligibility (n): the fact of being allowed to do or receive something because you satisfy certain conditions:
A "grants eligibility" for B, if A satisfies the conditions for B.
"Granting eligibility to apply" is a participle phrase that modified the noun "degree". It is the same grammar ...
While the phrase
As of 2019, Chrome usage is 50%
is perhaps not strictly incorrect, as it can be interpreted as a compound noun, in my opinion here a possessive form is significantly clearer and better:
As of 2019, Chrome's usage is 50%
Better yet is to recast the sentence, as:
As of 2019, the usage of Chrome is 50%
As of 2019, the usage of ...