I agree that the meanings are the same.
Sentence 2 has an unnecessary comma. Maybe that's why it's considered wrong.
Sentence 1 is more like the original since the clauses are in the same order, and "But for..." is a direct replacement for "In the absence of..."
When we describe a point of time. So we should use “was dressed”.
But when we are describing about a period of time in the past, we use “had been”. For example “In the night he arrived to attend the wedding of his brother, he had been in dark suit”
In your question it was just a point of time (when he arrived = at the time he arrived). So we should use “was ...
The gerund often means "the action of" and won't always mean the same as the noun. They can mean the same thing, but not always so.
In your case:
the code's implementation
The one doing the action "implement" isn't a person. Rather, "implementation of the code in the system" just means something like "the fact that the ...
Yes, it is correct - worried can be an adjective.
As an analogy, painted is the past tense of paint, but can also be an adjective for something that you have painted:
He saw a freshly painted house.
But the construction of worried is a little different - it doesn't have to do with the verb worry - it is formed from the noun worry. It is somewhat rare, but ...
Use the second. The first is acceptable, perhaps, but it sounds odd because you are specifying the time with "when"... it causes the listener to wonder why you've worded it strangely.
Also, you need an article before dark suit.
I've changed the wording a bit to make it slightly more natural:
When he arrived at his brother's wedding, he was ...
"Means" is not right in this context.
I think the source of your confusion is that "ways and means" are often mentioned together, but they mean different things, otherwise it would be pointless saying both together!
A way is a possible method, style or manner
A means is an available resource
For example, driving and walking are two ...
Though it obviously refers to the ball, not the table for many people, technically this sentence might still be interpreted otherwise (look at the table), so it is ambiguous. If you want to keep the pronoun and remove ambiguity, then move it into the right context, perhaps like this:
Look at the red ball after you put it under the table.
Look at the ...
I agree that that use of "alike" is correct. It could be replaced by "as well". The whole phrase is equivalent to "peers and also parents". I don't think "equally" fits, because there's no implication that the pressure from the two groups is exactly the same.
"May I have your phone number?" "What is your phone number?" "Would you give me your phone number?" If it's obvious from the context that you're talking about a telephone number, you might just say "number". Like, "What's your number?"
I agree with Wehage in the comments:
It's not wrong, but conducting a training program does not ensure that the employees will learn new skills.
By omitting/removing the word can, you are implying that they will all learn new skills. If you include the word can, it implies they have the opportunity to learn new skills but all of them may not do so.
As you ...
"On googling" here may have given you some wrong advice.
My belief is that "caught" would be better than "got" in this context, as it bears the connotation of reaching out deliberately to take hold of something.
"Get" has none of these nuances, and merely implies that a hold on the clothing came into the hand of the ...
Both forms occur, and they mean the same thing. The following Google ngram shows that the version with "to" was once much more frequent, while the version with "for" now occurs almost as much:
Google ngram "intents and purposes"
This reference says that "to" is more common in British English, and "for" is more common in American English:
Garner's Modern ...