I would think that "different rates of consumption" would be more idiomatic than "levels", as "consumption" is the action of using up a resource over time.
For an alternative to "different", I personally would not use "varying", because that can also mean fluctuating, whereas it seems you are trying to refer to three constant rates.
You could use the words ...
"an unduly fearful person"
I recall this word getting used as a child, usually chanted like an insult when someone was afraid to do something.
Occasionally in a sentence like:
He won't do it because he is a scaredy-cat.
Infuriated and furious share a root meaning - "furious" is an adjective, and the state of being angry, whereas "infuriate" is a verb, meaning to cause someone to be angry. "Infuriated", as well as being the past-tense, is also an adjective form describing someone's state after someone or something has made them angry.
Likewise "enraged" can be an adjective, ...
Furious, Infuriated, Enraged
ALL of them mean VERY VERY angry and are mostly interchangeable.
According to Merriam-Webster:
Definition of furious
- exhibiting or goaded by anger
- indicative of or proceeding from anger
- giving a stormy or turbulent appearance
You can see that "furious"mostly means "very angry". However, it also has some extra ...
A person can also "get their hackles up", or you can "make someone's hackles rise". In the literal sense, hackles are the bristly hairs on the back of an animal (particularly a dog), which stand up when the animal is alarmed or frightened. Humans don't have hackles in the literal sense, but one can still talk about a person who is alarmed, annoyed, or ...
The word bristle is used to talk about animals' hair standing stiffly because they are afraid or angry. And it is also used figuratively to say that someone is angry or annoyed. For example:
The director bristled at the fact that the movie got negative reviews.
The phrase get someone's back up can also be used to say that someone is made angry or anoyed ...
Most people say "It was them".
A couple of centuries ago, some grammarians made up rules to make English more like Latin (and sell more grammar books), and taught people that it should be "It was they": generations of teachers have taught that form, and some people still say it.
I don't think there is a word for it as such, but the most common expression I am aware of is "arching their back".
From the website petassure.com:
Why do cats arch their backs? ... Not only does he arch his back as a form of stretching "sleepy" muscles after a nap, the arched back is also a form of showing that the cat is feeling threatened. In the ...
Dr. Luigi Galvani, Italian Doctor in the 1700s used electricity to cause a dead frog legs to twitch. Galvanize is the term used to describe that later expanded to most anything stimulated by electricity or shock.
An actively working person is "employed".
A more specific term for someone who is working and earning money
is "gainfully employed".
It depends on what you mean by "active", because a person can be "employed" if they have a current contract of employment, yet they may not be "present" at work for a number of reasons - maternity leave, annual leave (vacation)...
In his anxiety to make himself understanding, he spoke too slowly and too loudly.
In his anxiety to make himself understood, he spoke too slowly and too loudly.
In his anxiety to make himself understand, He spoke too slowly and too loudly
In the first sentence understanding is an adjective which means tolerant and so it is not suitable in the ...
It’s almost always “introduction to” a subject, not “introduction on”.
I read a pdf I found of this section of the book, and in context, they should have said “introduction to”. The excerpt I read had a bunch of other minor errors, which makes me think the authors are not native speakers. (Like, they say ‘summary on’ not ‘summary of’.)
If I understand correctly, that type of a thing would normally be called factory - RFFactory, for instance. I don't think that's what you're aiming for, though.
Would 'StandardRF', 'CommonRF', 'ImplementedRF' or 'DerivedRF' work? Does this new object implement an interface? Could you call it 'IStandardRFProduct', or maybe just IRF?
"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 think semantically both the sentences are correct.But grammatically the past perfect is considered to be the correct form according to purists.
But these days past perfect is being slowy replaced by simple past.I have seen many sentences of this kind being taught to the
class by the native speakers and many news items are with the simple past.
If they ...
"Cheer up" means to lighten one's mood.
It can be said to someone else as a request, or perhaps more accurately as words of encouragement, for example:
Why are you looking so sad? Cheer up! It can't be that bad!
It can also be used to describe the action of trying to help someone else to lighten their mood, for example:
I'm going over to John's house ...
'Cheer up' means become happier.
There is a difference between grammatically correctly and being socially aware.
Oh your brother has just died, cheer up!
is grammatically correct, but damn insensitive. It is now very rarely considered okay to say "cheer up", "smile it might never happen" etc unless you know the person and what has made them unhappy in ...
Cheer up is used in this context to try and tell someone to not focus on something negative in their life. In your example, people trying to cheer up a friend who had someone pass away in their life, is them trying to get their friend to stop focusing on the negative emotions associated with death and to refocus on something else.
This is why just telling ...
In general, country names, like Japan and Scotland, are not plural nouns. However, in British English, when the name of a group of people, such as a sports team, is a singular noun, it often agrees with a plural verb. This is called a collective noun or a collective singular. Wikipedia talks about it here, and here is another question about it. Here are some ...
First I'll explain the relevant sense of for in other contexts, and then I'll explain why the sentence that you found odd makes sense.
"Looking for", "listening for", etc.
Here are some similar uses of for. From your comments, it sounds like you already understand listen for, but I'm providing these just to be sure.
I reached for my keys on the dresser ...
Ok, first of all, I should clarify that there are two forms of the verb here that are often confused:
"have gotten" -- This is the present perfect form of "get". It implies something has happened (but may be continuing to happen) at some (unspecified) point in the past.
"have got" -- This is an idiomatic (not grammatically correct but frequently used to ...
First, the direct answer to your question:
... and the universe — or fate, you decide what to call it ... (correct)
is the correct way to say this.
... and the universe — or fate, you decide how to call it ... (incorrect)
is not grammatically correct.
In English, the phrase "how to <do something>" is often explained as meaning something like "...
The person who answered your question is purposefully sharing their experience of reading your sentence as if it were happening in the moment. It's a much less formal, less objective and more familiar way of getting their idea across than your suggestions. To me it sounds more urgent, especially since they say 'here is a warning:'. They are trying to make it ...
It is ambiguous and could have either meaning, or it could mean both at once. Teachers have some discretion on who to give a passing or failing grade to. If you feel that the cause of the "F" is the teacher's (unfair) grading you can say "The teacher failed me" to mean "... gave me a failing grade". This is rather casual.
You can also use "the teacher ...
"Well under way" is generally used after something is started and a good amount of the started thing has been done.
"Fully under way" is generally used to indicate that the staring of something is complete, but it makes no statement about how much of the thing has been done.
To provide an example, a group doesn't start walking all at once, a few ...
You are giving a science course.
The students are already enrolled in the university/school.
The best term here is:
One doesn't apply for a course; one applies for a job.
If courses are by special admittance only (students who have shown they have a high level), it would still be Dear Student.
The phrase "closet supporter" might be a good fit. It derives from the expression "in the closet."
I am a closet gender equality supporter.
Originally this phrase was strongly associated with LGBT concerns as mentioned in the Wikipedia page. But in contemporary usage it has come to find more general usage. As an example, in Chicago you might hear someone ...
They both basically mean the same thing.
She refuses to acknowledge the fact that her son was smoking.
She closed her eyes to the fact that her son was smoking
She shut her eyes to the fact that her son was smoking.
The first one uses visual imagery to indicate that when she sees her son smoking, she shuts her eyes, preventing her from seeing it, ...
The phrase "to close/shut one's eyes" is not often used figuratively or metaphorically. It most often means to literally close one's eyes. The expression "to turn a blind eye to (something)" is inherently figurative. So in this situation you should use the 2nd version:
She turned a blind eye to the fact that her son was smoking.
In the examples you give, all three options are possible and idiomatic. Which one you prefer comes down to a matter of choice, context and emphasis.
If you change the sentences while keeping the phrase, the three constructions might be:
The soldiers favoured the model known as man-in-the-middle attack.
The man-in-the-middle-attack proved the most ...
In both of your cases, you could call the medicine an anesthetic (or if you are using the British spelling, anaesthetic). We distinguish between the two kinds of anesthetics with an additional adjective. A general anesthetic makes a person unconscious, while a local anesthetic makes one part of their body numb.
The phrase "anesthetic medicines", while not ...
Firstly "latest" does not only mean "most recent". The word "latest" can be used in discussing events at any time, including the future, and is part of canned phrases such as "at the latest". We can say that "the latest you should pay that bill is the 31st of this month", but not "the most recent you should pay that bill is the 31st of this month". The word "...
It really does the trick, both for what you want and the alternative, without the confusion of "latest", and the spelling is conveniently similar. Consider the adverb definition from Merriam-Webster:
last adverb (MW)
1: after all others : at the end
// came last and left first
2: most lately
// saw him last in Rome
3: in ...
For your particular example I think the sentence should have a definite article. The name of the model is being given, so it uniquely identifies the model and so should have a definite article. Extending this for your situation you might have:
We discoved a new attack model which we call the "man-in-the-middle" attack. A man-in-the-middle attack is ...
You have a problem with your question.
You're using dates of November. At the time of this question, it's October and November is in the future. When you say that latest means most recent, that's only if you're talking about the past. If you're talking about the future, it's the opposite.
However, for the purpose of the final answer, the same general ...
You are right "to present" and "to gift" are rather formal
present is most commonly used in the format "I present to you the award for..."
In your sentence I would use give, give does mean a present, a gift
I was going to give you another book
Here is a warning: I am waiting for the 'but' at the end of that because of the 'was'.
I was going to give ...
"Very much that" is generally considered to be a mistake in that context. Because the phrase is modifying the loving, "so much that..." is an acceptable phrase to fill in. In other circumstances, "such that" is valid (but here it's either awkward or incorrect). And as others have pointed out, the sentence doesn't have to combine the two clauses to show cause ...
The sentence as written is not correct.
You can change it to:
How do you feel about some people calling you "Toma-chan" in Japan?
(with are removed)
How do you feel that some people are calling you "Toma-chan" in Japan?
These both ask your opinion about the fact that some people are calling you "Toma-chan". I don't know the name for the ...
Sure, seems natural to me.
They both mean that she wanted Y to be there, but he wasn't. "could" implies that X thinks that Y didn't come because he was unable to come. "would" might imply that X thinks Y didn't care enough to come.
If X is trying to make Y feel bad, he might use "would". Otherwise he might use "could". But it's not that big of a ...
Yes, it's correct—in India
When I first read your sentence, I thought that it misused the word reservations. But I was wrong. I am an American native speaker, and I just did some googling and learned that the sense of "reservations" in your sentence is standard in India but not in Britain or America. It is not mentioned in the Merriam-Webster article that ...
I think, from what you say, that in India 'reservations' has a special, local meaning, when applied to government.
I think the word you need, to use instead, to convey this meaning in English when speaking to people from other countries, is 'concessions', which means 'special adjustments or allowances' (made to any particular group, eg. women.
I think that ...
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.
Raining a lot is a perfectly acceptable phrase in English.
It is not a pleonasm because it is being used to describe how much it has been raining since the person left.
It has been raining since you left.
This means it hasn't stopped raining since you left.
It has been raining a lot since you left.
It has rained quite often (but not necessarily ...
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 ...