I think the main difference is emphasis.
In the example sentence, exchanging 'at the moment' for 'at this moment' will shift the emphasis to the time, 'THIS moment', making it a more important part of the message that he wants to know if there's someone in right now. I'd actually rephrase the sentence to 'right now!' instead of 'at the/this moment!', it ...
It appears "approximation of" would be best suited for numbers (mathematical approximation) and "approximation to" best for conceptual approximations.
noun [ C, usually singular ] UK /əˌprɒksɪˈmeɪʃən/ US
a figure that is close to a particular number or time but not ...
Regarding your first example, I would say (and it is more natural to say):
The attitudes towards the use of insect in animal feed and resulting livestock products are generally favourable, as recent scientific research has shown.
In the second example, both are ok, but So do I sounds a bit more emphatic.
Your assumption is correct—and there are several ways that the sentence could be reworded.
The simplest way of looking at it is in the form of basic elision (the wording that has been left out):
He could tell she was someone of importance. How important [she was] would give him the knowledge he needed to take control of the situation.
Frame Challenge (?)
I will try to synthesize an answer from the exchange I had in the comments with OP.
Short answer: No, your proposed reason, positive vs. negative adjective, is not the reason why the second sentence does not make sense. The main reason it doesn't make much sense logically.
If one considers negative adjectives that are more apt at ...
I think the teacher is mistaken, based on the account in the question. I see "thorugh" here as much the same as "by means of". If I were writing this I might well use dashes to set off "through getting exposure to media and listening to daily news", as it is a prepositional phrase. it explains how children are able to "determine what the wrong and right ...
Your teacher appears to have misparsed the sentence, and not recognised "through getting exposure to media and listening to daily news" as a prepositional phrase acting as a complement to "determine".
What you have is grammatical, but awkward and confusing (it seems to have confused your teacher). It would be clearer if you set off the prepositonal phrase ...
There are only a small number of verbs that take a past-participial clause as a catenative complement, most of which allow an infinitival complement too. Some of the verbs are "want", "order", and "report" (CGEL, 1244—1245)*.
Here are some examples:
i. UEFA said it wants the rules of soccer (to be) changed
ii. He order it (to be) destroyed
This explanation does not involve formal grammar, but the practical usage of language to convey ideas using different media.
The source of the complexity is the difficulty of adding punctuation in purely spoken words vs visually aided/written words.
I am going to slightly digress and talk about the "..." around influencer first, and then get back to the ...
It is public knowledge that anyone can purchase followers and likes
Ths is an instance of extraposed construction (Huddleston & Pullum, 2002: 1403). It derives from this more basic or canonical version:
That anyone can purchase followers and likes is public knowledge.
In the basic construction, the subject is realized by a clause; this use of ...
If [it is public knowledge that anyone can purchase followers and
likes], then why does an "influencer" hold weight?
The function of "it" is that of subject of the bracketed content clause.
In an extraposition construction like this, "it" doesn't obtain its meaning from the extraposed subject (here, "that anyone can purchase followers and likes"), but ...
I will come much more times here.
This is incorrect. In this case "many" such be used instead of "much". However even then it seems unnatural. It may be my personal word choice, however I would say:
I plan to visit frequently.
I hope to visit often.
The second one:
I will come here often.
This is technically fine, but it seems unnatural. I ...
The first statement is incorrect. A better usage would be:
He didn't have a pencil.
The reason not is used in the context of the second example is to express the alternative of what was thought to belong to the person.
This research shows the Americans mistrust in the world.
This is not grammatically correct.
This research shows the Americans' mistrust in the world.
This says that there is a group of Americans that have been discussed earlier, and they distrust the world.
This research shows the American mistrust in the world.
This says that mistrust in the world ...
It's not about rules, but more about style and readability. One problem with inserting adverbs between the verb and the object is that it may not be clear what they modify. One silly example of this:
Adam: He rode quickly his horse into town.
Byron: You mean he rode into town quickly?
Adam: No, "Quickly" is the name of his horse.
In your example, ...
Cambridge Dictionary says We don’t put adverbs between the verb and the object, citing as an example
She plays the piano really well
Not: She plays really well the piano.
But so far as I can see, in OP's example, in sequence is an adverbial element modifying the verb illustrate in exactly the same way really well adverbially modifies plays in the ...
The rule is that that you can interpose adverbs, indirect objects, and prepositional phrases between a verb and its direct object. Anyone who tells you there must be no interruption is simply citing a false rule.
What is true is that an interruption by a long, complex prepositional phrase may interfere with comprehension. That is a question of style rather ...
These sentences are correct.
The second phrase is parallel to the first, so "(should) not (be) awarded medals" is the understood meaning of the first. For the second, "but (should be) punished" is understood for the second. The contrast implied by "but" and the context makes the second sentence clear.
To add to the excellent answer above: "do you enjoy every day of your life?" would mean do you enjoy life in general, are you a happy person? Not just temporarily, like at this time in your life, but always.
Number one it would make more sense to say
Haven't you been reading the newspaper?
This is because
"Aren't you reading newspapers?"
means that the asker is wondering why the person is not reading multiple newspapers at the same time right now. "Haven't you been reading the newspaper?" is asking why the person hasn't been reading the news recently, ...