There is no correct, or incorrect, answer (in the real world. There probably is in your test!)
In that context, "they will win" seems more natural.
"They are going to win" is possible, but carries some extra meaning; but the extra meaning is not specific. For example, it might be a surprised prediction ("I didn't think it was possible, but now I'm sure") ...
In situations like this, it is always appropriate to use with.
Do you have your car with you?
Do you have your computer with you?
Do you have your pen with you?
If the item is small- a pen, a wallet or a phone that can be placed in a pocket, so that you are effectively wearing it, you can also use on. The Cambridge Dictionary, in the entry for ...
The phrase "the data bus" here is a name for "a bank of electrical traces". I am influenced by knowing that this is the factually correct answer. The sentence could possibly be interpreted otherwise, but "the data bus" is a parenthetical, so it should give more information about the preceding grammatical object, as in fact it does here.
If the intent was ...
The answer to this could depend upon which version of the English language is being used. For instance, there is American English and there is British English. I've often found that while much of our language usage is similar, there are many idioms that differ greatly in how they are used. Sometimes dialects vary--drastically at times--depending upon where a ...
This is from chapter 10 of The Hobbit, "A Warm Welcome". (See the link for the context.) The speaker is Thorin, the chief of the Dwarves, and he always speaks with a rather archaic tone and usage. He is addressing the town of the Lake-men at a public event, which makes him more formal than usual, and he is responding to an accusation that he and his ...
We usually say
Jim is able to do A.
Jim is capable of doing B.
My suggestions are
Jim is equally able to do A and B.
Jim is capable of doing both A and B.
Jim is just as capable of doing A as B.
Jim can do A just as well as B.
The difficulty here is that the woman is using sarcasm. In other words, she means the exact opposite of what she is saying. “Little human touches” implies service that is very personal and empathetic and that the people giving the service are taking care about you directly and concerning themselves with what you need.
The opposite of “little human ...
This could be recast as
Soon, he finishes restoring the old house in the best way possible. The project attracts attention for its architectural merit, and for the years of effort which Noah had expended. Articles about the project, with pictures, are published in newspapers.
A qualifying word, such as 'local" or "regional" could be placed before "...
There is an implied condition: "He might come but if he did come I should be surprised".
Note that "should" here is nothing to do with obligation: it is a slightly old-fashioned form used instead of "would" for the first person. Most people would way "I would be surprised" (or "I'd be surprised").
Also note, that "I'd be surprised" is effectively an ...
I’d say the first one works best, though 3) also can work. 2) implies that the speaker has never actively thought before that they would see Tedd in that place.
The first one works because it’s a hypothetical situation. The speaker is surprised to see Tedd, and thereby they’re expressing their surprise at this presence by saying “I never would have thought....
It means that some people are excluded from this offer.
When a company makes a special offer, such as "Enter a code on our website to get a discount", they might want to exclude some people. For example, they might exclude people who work at the company, or they might exclude business users of the service.
The exclusions might be geographical, the discount ...
It is a bit too much to ask us to rewrite it, but we can perhaps help you rewrite it by summarising what Gibbon seems to be saying.
Gibbon claims that the way we conduct our lives ("the actions and opinions of our lives") is determined by our emotions ("the finer feelings of moral evidence") rather than by cold logic ("the habit of rigid demonstration") - ...
"Having the last word" means making the final statement in an argument between two people. Obviously every argument has to end, and so someone has to have the last word, but it can be difficult to let the other person have the last word, as it feels like the person who has the last word has "won".
If someone "has to have the last word", it means that they ...
I think you may be looking at the wrong part of the sentence here.
I believe you want to consider:
To focus [something] on [something else].
To focus on: to give most of your attention to someone or something Def.
The use of 'Being' is not incorrect here, but you can't use it with 'precisely' in this way.
Being more precise, I just don't even know what "end up" means.
More precisely, I just don't even know what "end up" means.
Both of these sentences should be preceeded by something is vague, that needs a more accurate statement to follow it ...
To “live with something” means to “accept something” or to “abide something”.
live with something
to experience and accept an unpleasant event, decision, or situation:
When you get arthritis at your age, it’s just something you just have to live with.
The words every day can be deleted without changing the meaning ...
No, it doesn't mean if you omit good things. The hint of what she means is earlier in the story, when she says:
"So many people visited, and the fireplace made all of them
want to tell amazing stories; the child who happened to be standing on the right corner when the door of the ice cream truck came open and hundreds of popsicles crashed out; he man ...
"Any life will seem dramatic if you omit mention of most of it."
She actually means: All lives have dramatic moments, leave out the boring parts.
The author is using irony, a typical literary device.
most of it=most of any life.
Merriam Webster definition of irony:
Irony | Definition of Irony by Merriam-Webster
Yes, you are correct that the passage means, "one bit [of the sand] was glinting (sparkling) more than the rest [of the sand]", and of course that bit was the diamond, not sand.
But the specific phrase, "one bit glinting more than the rest", is just a literal description of the way the event happened. The story, taken as a whole, is about the extra meaning ...
You beat someone up.
You beat someone up badly.
You would not say to someone: Get out of here, or you will get beaten (up) badly [by me].
You would say: Get out of here, or I will beat you up!
That is what you tell someone else: He got badly beaten (up) by those guys.
The point of misplaced modifiers is that they make the parsing of the sentence ambiguous. You say that the participles modify the subjects of the sentences ("I and she"), but the problem is that those aren't the explicit subjects of the sentence.
1. I found a hundred dollar bill on the sidewalk walking down the street.
→ I was ...
Not as a standalone sentence. "However" can be used at the start of a sentence, but in that case it is indicating a contrast with something in a previous sentence, not with something later in teh same sentence. "However" can often be replaced with "but". If that makes no sense, the use of "however" may be incorrect.
You could, however, recast the sentence ...
There was a bird across the window.
This only works if the bird is splayed out across the window, or if the bird has struck the window, and its dead or injured body is spread across it. Not at all the intended meaning.
2- There was a bird across from the window.
This implies that the bird is somehow opposite the window, perhaps on the other side of a ...
Literally, it means the police will blow open the door with explosives (or, at least, great force).
Figuratively, it means the police will quickly come to arrest them, using every means at their disposal (including, presumably, explosives or great force).
The figurative meaning is more likely in most contexts.
The construction Would you care for [some] X? is a kind of "frozen form" largely restricted to extremely polite / formal contexts. Usually where the speaker (a restaurant waiter, for example) is addressing someone of higher social status). X can be either a noun (something being offered) or an infinitive-based verb clause (an activity being proposed)...
When we wish somebody success, we do so in three general forms:
✔ I wish you success.
This form doesn't take any kind of article.
✔ I wish you a great deal of success.
This version uses the indefinite article, but success is preceded by an adjectival phrase.
✔ I wish you the success you deserve.
This time, we use the definite article, but an adjectival ...
The gerund used in the original sentences works as a noun expressing an action. A speaker can find something good or not so good in that action.
Replacing or removing that preposition is sometimes possible, but not in all these examples. The first sentence after modification at least can get a second meaning and sound like 'There is no shame that wants to ...
As a native American English speaker, both versions are roughly interchangeable.
However, "being + [verb]" implies to me a stronger focus on the action behind something, while words that end in "-ed" imply more of an adjective.
For 1/2, I would prefer 1 as it focuses on the action of informing families, instead of the fact that families are informed.