Either looks awkward to me, partly because each expresses observation rather than agency; to be mindful of (not) committing fallacies is merely to be aware of them (or their absence), and does not unambiguously imply any effort either way.
I would prefer any of these:
mindful not to commit fallacies
mindful to avoid fallacies
mindful of fallacies
There are the idioms:
It goes in one ear and comes out the other (meaning you immediately forget what you hear)
He's having a senior moment (meaning someone is having a lapse in memory, perhaps due to old age or like someone older)
He's got a brain like swiss cheese (meaning full of holes)
The only equivalent I can think of that is similar to your lengthy ...
Either works, although the implied meaning is different. The first suggests you pay attention to any logical fallacies you might make (presumably, in order to avoid them). The second suggests that you pay attention not to make the logical fallacies in the first place.
It's two ways to say the same thing. Because the word "commit" is slightly ambiguous ...
Being "mindful" means simply that you keep something in mind. The context and common sense would mean that if you are "mindful of committing logical fallacies" you are keeping them in mind so that you can avoid them.
For example, a British employment lawyer says that "Businesses need to be mindful of falling foul of sex discrimination rules". He does not ...
mindful of doing
careful to do
So what you want is
When I write, I am always mindful of not committing logical fallacies
I have to say that I find the construction verbose and a bit convoluted although admittedly idiomatic.
When writing, I always strive to avoid logical fallacies.
But that is rhetoric, not grammar.
When people are speaking and trying to formulate a thought, they frequently add or delete words that might help clarify what they say.
It's very hard to understand why it is that X
It's very hard to understand why it is X
mean the same thing. Yes, "that" would make the sentence more intelligible, but people do not always speak (or even write) in the ...
"Grew" would be the most appropriate word. It is quite common to say that "feelings grow", certainly more idiomatic than other synonyms.
Here are some example sentences using the expression "the feeling grew":
The feeling grew that the business had been force-fed, and had overreached itself.
As the day passed, the feeling grew in the Army of ...
I would suggest "on the rise" if you prefer an idiom.
There are virtually an indefinite number of expressions that can satisfy the requirement-astonishing, phenomenal, spectacular, impressive, remarkable and so on and so forth.
phenomenal serves the purpose.
Here are three links which show synonyms for phenomenal.You can use any of them for your sentence.
It's a lovely turn of phrase, invented by the author but (as noted in the comment by @Hellion below) with a biblical reference.
The phrase signifies the author's wishful thinking about a world free of violence and aggression.
In that imaginary world, a gentle little lamb could play safely in a meadow while a big lion snoozed nearby, with no intention ...
I also feel "immaterial" would be a word used in an economic context, i.e.
unimportant under the circumstances; irrelevant. 
Since you're saying it's effectively zero in the global context.
The word I like best in this context is meager:
2 b : deficient in quality or quantity
// a meager diet
So, and to rephrase the sentence slightly in order to make it more natural with the word:
The country has a meager share of the global output.
It looks like maybe you are concerned with avoiding words that aren't idiomatic rather than necessarily finding a less obvious word. If that's true, then, of the words you mentioned:
small: Perfectly idiomatic. In the example of being only 1% of global output, I would choose "very small."
little: Less idiomatic in this case. It is natural to say "very ...
While this word doesn't fit every context, when comparing a slice of some larger total insignificant seems the most appropriate word. A more day-to-day example would be a vacation budget: if you spend $1,500 on your plane ticket, a $10 charge to pick your seat is insignificant. (Of course, it still manages to upset people!)
The term is used ...
When you divide something up and single out one portion of it for consideration, that portion is called a "share".
When we compare shares we talk about their sizes. "Small" and "tiny" are sizes. "Few" is not a size, but a quantity. It tells how many, not how big, so it isn't appropriate for a description of a share. "Low" tells either height, or (in this ...
If the sense is that the percentage of global domestic product should be higher, then the current level of output might be considered inadequate. If so, the word "minimal" might fit. Minimal means:
the least possible
very small or slight
Any of these connotations would probably be appropriate, but which sense is being communicated ...
In contrast with Ben Kovitz's answer, I personally don't see the need to acquire a printed reference when online resources are so plentiful and so thorough. In these cases I turn to thesaurus.com:
small: limited, meager, minuscule, modest, paltry, poor, slight, minute, humble, inconsequential, insufficient, piddling, pitiful, puny, trivial, negligible, ...
One possibility, if you want to emphasize very strongly that the country's share is small, is minuscule:
The country's share of the global output is minuscule.
But to recommend a specific word, we would need to know much more about the point that you want to make about the country. You should look over the many available synonyms and choose the one that ...
I've just found the answer. According to Collins dictionary:
If you are in the habit of doing something, you do it regularly or
often. If you get into the habit of doing something, you begin to do
it regularly or often.
Note that "into" usually implies movement, so when you get into something, you are going inside it, as if you move to "enter the ...
Both are correct and mean the same thing, but I would say into the habit of reading is less idiomatic.
3) Is it natural to say "the habit of reading" or it is preferred to say "the habit of reading books"
The habit of reading is fine, whilst the habit of reading books could be used to specificy specifically what you will be reading, for example books or ...
The "to you" is generally used only where there is an audience (i.e. third parties listening or watching), especially if:
(a) there are several people to whom the "good morning" could be addressed, and/or
(b) if the audience cannot see the person to whom the remark is being addressed (e.g. a radio programme or a podcast).
The key point is that the ...
From your question you understand that risk is both a noun and a mass-noun (uncountable). One of the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary we find is specifically used as mass noun:
1.5 [mass noun] The possibility of financial loss.
‘the Bank is rigorous when it comes to analysing and evaluating risk’
When used in the context of financial ...
US politicians like farming and country metaphors:
-This dog won't hunt.
- You can't put lipstick on a pig.
- See Fumble Fingers barn one.
- Don't flog a dead horse.
- The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
- And so forth. There are many more.
I suspect he mixed his metaphor up with:
That train has left the station. That comes from now being so far away ...
The exact phrasing given by OP is relatively uncommon 1 compared to what I see as the two relevant "idiomatic standard" usages...
1: to close the stable door after the horse has bolted
to have tried to prevent something happening, but to have done so too late to prevent damage being done
2: That ship has already left port / sailed
The Guide to Grammar and Writing website, sponsored by the Capital Community College Foundation, says this:
Many writers consider it bad form to use apostrophe -s possessives with pieces of furniture and buildings or inanimate objects in general. Instead of "the desk's edge" (according to many authorities), we should write "the edge of the desk" and ...
How is he?
What is he like?
First I would like to talk about your title.
How is he ? means how is his health.?
What is he like? means how is his appearance?
I think how should be a teacher like? is wrong.
How should be a teacher? means:
What should be the behaviour of a teacher?
What should be a teacher like?
You could say something along the lines of:
I always pop back home in the morning... / I always quickly pop back home...
I always nip back home in the morning... / I always quickly nip back home...
I hurry/rush back home every morning...
I have to dash back home every morning so I can sleep
'Pop' and 'nip' are used when you go there but don't stay for ...
When you make a conditional statement you can either say what happens when the conditions are met:
1) I'm the kind of person who doesn't like a movie if it's not very
or you can say what would happen if the conditions were met:
2) I'm the kind of person who wouldn't like a movie if it wasn't very convincing.
Either way it amounts to the ...
Both "persistent, high level of unemployment" and "persistently high level of unemployment" are idiomatic in the U.S.; you will hear both from educated native speakers. Both cases mean the same thing, namely
Unemployment persists at a high level.
In the first case, "high level of unemployment" is being treated grammatically as a noun phrase that is ...