Michael Harvey suggests that you really should only have to "justify" yourself once. This is why he says "try to justify" makes more sense in your example, because of the word "keep", which indicates an ongoing action.
In this way it's like "finish" or "arrive". You normally don't "keep finishing" or "keep arriving", as these are one-time events. You ...
It means that people lie most in the following cases:
1) Before elections
(They make fake promises, give false hope to people in order to get their votes, and forget/ignore those promises once they are in power)
2) During war
(Leaders and authorities lie in war for multiple purposes, either give false information to people to avoid panic, or ignite ...
This is completely correct, as he's still alive, use is, in the simple present. For a person no longer living, use was, which is simple past. Here "born" is an adjective describing what kind of leader Ali is or was, an expansion of He is a leader. It has the same meaning and grammar as "natural leader".
However, as "born" is also a verb, you can also say ...
MEDICINE can be used both as a countable and uncountable noun.
So we can say:
"Here is some medicine" (uncountable noun) or
"Here are some medicines" (countable noun).
See the entry from Oxford Dictionary:
A drug or other preparation for the treatment or prevention of disease.
‘give her some medicine’
count noun ‘your doctor will ...
This is the entry for thunder from the Cambridge Dictionary:
thunder noun UK /ˈθʌn.dər/ US /ˈθʌn.dɚ/
B1 [U] the sudden loud noise that comes from the sky especially during a storm
Note the U, which indicates that thunder is uncountable. Uncountable nouns don't generally require an indefinite article, unless you are talking about a particular type ...
"I do not" is an expression of fact, or personal observation. "I will not" describes a personal preference. In this case, it's more common to express this as a preference, so either C or D ("won't accept") is better.
I think it's a question of context and dialect whether "excuse" should be singular or plural, so I can't say for certain which would be ...
Because we do not have the full context, in particular the meaning of the abbreviation 'EI', it is impossible to be sure what meaning is intended. But irrespective of the details, I do not see where the problem that you see in 'two dependent clauses' comes from. The sentence in bold has the following logical structure:'...because of A, something happens.' ...
To inform the reader that more information will be coming later on you could use
This/[X] will be covered/discussed later
This/[X] will be covered/discussed in a later chapter
This/[X] will be covered/discussed in more detail/depth later on.
These are all examples of commands, in which the subject (you/you all) is omitted. Although the subjects are not explicitly written, they are implied, so these examples are in fact complete sentences.
See this post for more information:
Apart from being a good student, he is also a good son.
I would agree that the being is required in this case.
However I would also ask whether apart is the word you want to use. It is commonly held by some that good students are typically good sons. So perhaps something like:
In addition to being a good student, he is also a good son.
The general construction is:
It's time [something].
These sentences are fine:
You move on.
By extension, so are these:
It's time you eat.
It's time you move on.
There nothing wrong with the longer version (it's time for you to move on), but the shorter version is also acceptable.
These discovery provided us insight into how the living cells work and the causes of cancer.
does have some problems. It should read "This discovery" or "These discoveries" depending non whether there is one or more than one discovery, but never "These discovery". I would also favor "insight into how living cells work", not "insight into how ...
They could be either.
In the sentence
Wash the dishes!
The phrase is a complete clause, and a complete sentence. It is an imperative.
In the sentence
We wash the dishes on Monday.
The phrase "wash the dishes" is not a complete clause in this example, it is the verb phrase in a longer sentence. This sentence only has a single clause.
So the ...
As an adjective, able generally only takes three forms: able, abler, and ablest.
1 a : having sufficient power, skill, or resources to do something
// able to solve a problem
2 : abler\ -b(ə-)lər\; ablest\ -b(ə-)ləst\ : marked by intelligence, knowledge, skill, or competence
Although it's more common to use more able ...
This is simply journalese, where omitting words when the meaning can still be grasped is common. In fact what the question quotes is a headline, where this tendency is even more marked. Much the same phrase appe3ars in the body of the article:
Remainers, passionate pro-Europeans, sensible pragmatists, people who over a lifetime have earned a measure of ...
The error you have made is that "so" has two different uses. One is an adverb which has a similar application as "too", for example:
That is so kind of you.
That is too kind of you.
However, the meaning is not identical and they are not strictly interchangeable. "So" means "to a great extent" whereas "too" means "to an excessive degree" (although some ...
A problem with would suggest that the subject is the source of the problem.
A problem for means that the subject has to deal with the problem.
So in case of laziness, it is a problem that students have to overcome, so it is a problem for them.
Laziness is a problem for many students.
Many students have problems with laziness.
I had no idea that I would react the same way to her texting him as I had
to her seeing him.
I had no idea that I would react to her texting him the way I had
to her seeing him.
With two I hads and one I'd the sentence had become a little repetetive. So I changed your I'd to I would.
Alternatives? Well, you could rewrite it. For ...
I had to look up Thanos to understand the usage. For anyone else who doesn't know, he's a fictional supervillain appearing in American comic books published by Marvel Comics (hence, a natural enemy of superhero Spiderman).
Standard English syntax would require an adjective / adjectival phrase after the noun phrase all things. In a typical context such as ...
the phrase "have a job" can carry any of several meanings. Here it means "I work at the coffee shop bussing tables". (In case you are not familiar with this use of "bussing", it means "clearing tables of used dishes, and setting the tables up ready for the next customer"
She needs to organize the project. She will have quite a job doing that.
means that ...
More common usage would be:
"the whole world collapsed around me."
"the whole world crumbled around me."
but since this is clearly fiction, you are allowed a degree or two of "poetic licence" and there are loads of similar similes available, with slight adjustment, such as "a hole opened up beneath my feet"
About the only context where native speakers use the construction behind [possessive (pro)noun] back (OP's example #3) is the figurative usage...
If you've got something to say, say it! Don't just go talking about me behind my back!
...which doesn't really mean from a physical location somewhere behind me (it nearly always means when I'm not present to ...
No matter how much.
However much it might embarrass you, you're taking your little sister to that concert!
In this case, you could say:
Whatever and however much is thrown into the pit, it stays empty.