the term is response data. The data received as responses to a survey, for example.
The data from the response is written as: response data. This is a common phenomenon in English. Results of the tests becomes: test results. These are not formal compound nouns. They are noun phrases using two nouns in order to shorten text.
View Survey Data
to remove x from statistical results.
statistical results is the proper term here. There is no need for a possessive at all.
As shown in this text:
Changes in data are manifested "immediately" throughout the spreadsheet as a result of the cell formulas. From a pedagogical perspective, this immediacy can be a great advantage. We can examine the effect of ...
Regardless of whether we think of data as singular or plural, the word response in OP's example is an (adjectival) noun adjunct / attributive noun usage.
Attributive nouns are usually singular, as in He bought a car radio, but in certain contexts, such as They met in a singles bar, the plural form has become idiomatically established.
Things get more ...
This answer takes into account the actual use case of collating results and preparing statistics of those results, not solely the English usage.
There is some implied information here. You are collecting results (from observations) and from the results you are making statistics to understand those observations.
If that statement is true, then the ...
The first sentence is valid: results' is a possessive plural, so the sentence is equivalent to:
we remove them them from the statistics of our results
In the second and third sentences, result(s) and statistics are combined to form a compound noun. statistics is the most significant noun, so all other nouns have to be singular. result must therefore be ...
You need to think about what the teacher means by "we". From the perspective of the teacher, "we" means "I and you and the other students".
When you report this, you change perspective, "I" becomes "Her", "you" becomes "I" and "the other students" is still "the other students".
So the teacher's "we" will become our "Her and I and the other students"....
No. There are two (related) words spelled "use", the verb /ju:z/ and the noun /ju:s/. Here the noun is being used as part of a compound noun phrase "language use"
It would also be possible to use a participle used /ju:zd/ instead of the noun, with almost the same meaning.
There are two past activities here
1. John was born
2. His grandfather died
Out of these two activities, the activity which happened earlier is John's grandfather's death. So the first activity should be in the past perfect but not the second.
The correct sentence is:
John was born decades after his grandfather's death
This sentence means that John ...
If you’ve [made a change [that you feel [would [benefit the community
I’ve bracketed the subordinate clauses. There are four in all.
The understood subject of "made" is "you", and of "would" and "benefit" is "a change".
To answer your question; the tense is wrong and we will need a "determiner" in this standalone use.
New subway cars was built by a Chinese company it should be The New subway cars were built by a Chinese company.
However, the original sentence is a mess New subway cars built by a Chinese company for Boston residents started their first run in the U.S. ...
I agree; it is simply redundant. It's like saying "more, more good" and you'd never (at least one can hope) say, "This book is more, more good than your book." The usage of "more better" suggests a substandard education.
Example sentence one is correct. We can use the past continuous tense to describe interrupted action in the past. This sentence makes perfect sense.
Example sentence two is not incorrect.
The Oxford English Grammar (1994) says this:
Compare the past continuous and past perfect continuous.
When I saw Debbie, she was playing golf. (I saw her in ...
Though both the sentences are grammaticlly correct i prefer the first sentence
"When she arrived , he was repairing " is more natural because the activity was continuing in the past at the point
we usually do not use past perfect continuous without a time phrase
so when she arrived, he had been repairing the bike for half an hour is more natural
I don't find any grammatical errors here. But, I think the sense made is slightly different in each sentence.
"was repairing" concerns only the point of arrival of 'he'. That is, what the person was doing at that point of time.
"had been repairing" talks about how the action was being done for quite sometime even before the arrival of the said 'he'.
he is in the chair ....he is on the chair .....Which one is right and why?
Both are correct.
He sat on the dining room chair
He sat back in his chair and browsed the newspaper.
It depends on what type of chair. A dinning room chair is most often just a seat with a back. You sit on it, like you would a stool. Whilst a fire side chair is usually of the ...
Omitting "has" changes the meaning slightly, because it changes nthe tense. It is not a simple contraction or elision.
Amy has had many different jobs.
This is in the Present Perfect tense. In this construction it indicates that Amy has had many jobs over a period starting in nthe past, and continuing into the present, or over the course of her entire ...
A form of be with a past participle is the normal way of forming a passive in English.
So being interviewed is the -ing form of be interviewed, which is the passive of interview.
I look forward to being interviewed means roughly the same as I look forward to somebody interviewing me.
She was afraid of being accused of a crime which she did not commit ...
The first sentence is grammatically correct:
I've been in love with you ever since I saw you.
The second sentence needs to be rephrased, for example
I fell in love with you at the moment I first saw you.
if you look at increase in the Cambridge dictionary, you will see [I or t] at the beginning of the entry: this means that increase can be intransitive (subject - verb) or transitive (subject - verb - object). The thing that increases is the subject when the verb is used intransitively and the object when it is used transitively. Look what happens to rail ...
It's correct (as a shortening of "I live in Tokyo"), but redundant, and doesn't add any clarity, so it would probably be omitted.
It sounds odd because with the question "Which city do you live in" your brain assumes an answer "I live in" and then you add "in Tokyo", giving "I live in in Tokyo" (obviously ungrammatical). Your brain needs to do extra work to ...
Typical orienting reactions include the following.
Can be written as a complete sentence.
2.The arteries to the brain grow wider allowing more blood to reach it, the heart slows down and arteries to the large muscles become narrower so as to reduce blood supply to them.
Can also be written as a standalone sentence. Which in this case I suggest it ...
There is no phrasal verb "have (something) into" and you use the preposition "into" with verbs indicating/that indicate motion. So this sentence doesn't work.
You can use the structure "Have (somebody) do (something)", meaning "cause (somebody) to do (something)". This gives a sentence like:
Let's have another person join the game.
There is also a ...
The sentence you quote was not written by anybody who was trying to be clear. But apart from lack of clarity, it is grammatically OK.
I think that you are understandably being confused by the very complicated noun-phrase at the end of this sentence. In outline it says:'The outcome (also) reflects [something]'. Something = 'the effect [x] has had on the ...
Yes, "What have you been doing..." is correct standard English.
Tom Sawyer is set in a poor community in Missouri, USA, and Tom is an uneducated lad. The people there speak in the dialect and idiom of the South, not in standard English.
"What you been doing..." is typical of the dialect of that part of the USA. It is not uncommon in casual speech in other ...
The usage of help here is as a transitive verb, with the meaning "To contribute in some way to."
Help + verb is a common combination.
Doctors are finding one way that sugar can benefit your health: it may
help heal wounds when antibiotics fail.
New mammogram guidelines could help catch breast cancer early.
It's correct, you can use "by the way" both at the beginning and at the end of the sentence:
By the way, there's an exam tomorrow.
There's an exam tomorrow, by the way.
In more formal texts you'd typically separate it with a comma, in chat/text lingo it's often omitted, especially if you're abbreviating:
?btw there's an exam tomorrow
Generally speaking, you get to a place or you arrive at a place.
So, both of the following would be acceptable:
✔ When you have got to the mall . . .
✔ When you have arrived at the mall . . .
But the combination of both prepositions isn't used:
✘ When you have got to at the mall . . .
✘ When you have arrived at to the mall . . .
The same is true ...
A walk at the park is essentially acting as a noun phrase where the word walk is not the verb to walk but the noun walk which is a thing that people do.
Therefore, in this whole sentence, there is only one verb: Took. This verb takes the past tense of take to be took.
So, applying that knowledge to this sentence in particular:
He took a walk at the park....
This is a horrid sentence of English. It has an overly long subject and so is very hard for anyone to understand. Don't write like this!
Consider these examples
One of the cats whose tails are long
One of the cats, whose tail is long
One of the boys whose school is big
One of the boys whose schools are big.
One of the boys, whose ...
The answers to question 42 are: is and is.
The first answer depends on the word one, which agrees with example. The word "one" is a pronoun in the example sentence.
Let's look at similar sentences:
One of the best tourist destinations for fine dining is Bangkok.
Some of the best examples of Neue Sachlichkeit painting are found in Berlin.
The examples ...
You really haven't described how "formal" is your relationship with your boss. For example, most of my communication with my superiors has been pretty casual.
But let's assume a more formal relationship, such as writing to a customer or a potential client, someone who might resent familiarity. In that case I would not use "bit" as it feels too casual for ...
Your first two sentences are not the same. The first sentence is correct, but the second is not.
"I am doing this job" is in the present continuous tense, and it is not correct to put it in the second sentence after "since".
We could make the second sentence correct this way:
It has been ten years since I started this job.
The third sentence is ...
Your two examples don't really differ in degree of formality, but they certainly differ in meaning.
"it is a bit urgent" is not great grammar, so actually comes off as slightly less formal, but because you said "a bit" you have made it seem less urgent than simply "it is urgent."
This sort of thing is often as much about how the recipient interprets ...