Search the Community

Find it difficult to understand the different CMAT grammar concepts? Worry not, because you can simply learn the same for free by simply clicking this video link : CMAT Grammar concepts | Unacademy

Find it difficult to understand the different CMAT grammar concepts? Worry not, because you can simply learn the same for free by simply clicking this video link : CMAT Grammar concepts | Unacademy

I have a feeling that Michael will be able to help me with this one. I'm reading Frankenstein, and I've come across this sentence, which has a construction with which I'm unfamiliar: Does horrible modify description? In other words, does this mean that his (Victor's) mischief would be considered worse than horrible?

Here's the link to the question. http://s29.postimg.org/h78h6505z/IMG_0910.jpg Here's what I wrote. Please give me feedback regarding grammar, vocabulary and coherence. If possible give me a score out of 9 please. It would help me a lot. The graph compares the number of minutes of telephone calls in the UK in 3 categories from 1995 to 2002. It can be clearly seen that the amount of mobile calls increased significantly throughout the years. The graph clearly reveals that mobile calls became extremely popular by the end of the 8 year period. There were only slight increases for mobile calls every year until 2000, when a noticeable rise occurred between 1999 and 2000. It was followed by another similarly significant increase in popularity of mobiles the next year. However, in the next year, only a very slight increase occurred in mobile calls. National and international calls were increased every year with no exception similar to mobiles. However there was no rapid increases unlike mobile calls’s sudden increases as years went by. The only noticeable increase for national and international calls happened between 1998 and 2000, when there was an unusually bigger rise than in previous years. This rise was followed by very little rises in the next 2 years. Local calls experienced not only increases but significant drops too during the 8 year period. The first 4 years showed identical rises but it was followed by a hardly noticeable increase next year in 1994, when the peak value was recorded at 99 which is the highest peak value amongst the 3 categories. The peak was then followed by similar drops in the remaining 3 years. It is clearly visible that local calls were the most popular type of calls as it’s peak value was recorded almost twice bigger than mobile call’s highest point on the graph.

[h=2]Hi,[/h] Is the sentence below correct? The final speaker gave us more details than HAD any of the previous speakers. shoudn't be The final speaker gave us more details than DID any of the previous speakers. Thanks...

Is the sentence below correct? The final speaker gave us more details than HAD any of the previous speakers. shoudn't be The final speaker gave us more details than DID any of the previous speakers. Thanks...

Trying the Huffington Post approach to thread titles here. Please forgive me if you were unfairly baited. For a while I have been noticing that people are using the phrase "in person" in a way that doesn't feel quite right to me. For example, I heard such utterances as: *The Tesla sure looks cool, but I'd have to see it in person to render my final verdict. *I don't think it's a good idea to buy jewelry online; it's the kind of thing you'd really need to see in person before you buy it. For me, those sound incorrect. For me, these usages are better: If you think the baby is cute in the video, wait till you see him in person. This is the sort of thing I'd prefer to discuss in person, not on the phone. What's the difference? You can probably figure it out--the 'person' is the human, not the object. So if you see someone in person, that means you see him live, in the flesh. And to me, it doesn't make sense to say that you're going to see a thing in person, because to me, it sounds like the thing is alive. Yeah, of course the next question will be how to express the same idea without using 'in person'? Well, what's wrong with just 'see'? As in 'I'd have to see the Tesla to be sure.' And in some cases, I suppose we could say 'I'd have to see the Tesla up close to be sure.' Yes, I know that language changes, evolves, etc. and that words and phrases take on new meanings over time. Anyone else agree as strongly as I do? Or disagree?

I need all the help I can get, so if anyone is willing to help, it is greatly appreciated! The following appeared as a letter to the editor from a Central Plaza store owner. "Over the past two years, the number of shoppers in Central Plaza has been steadily decreasing while the popularity of skateboarding has increased dramatically. Many Central Plaza store owners believe that the decrease in their business is due to the number of skateboard users in the plaza. There has also been a dramatic increase in the amount of litter and vandalism throughout the plaza. Thus, we recommend that the city prohibit skateboarding in Central Plaza. If skateboarding is prohibited here, we predict that business in Central Plaza will return to its previously high levels." Write a response in which you discuss what questions would need to be answered in order to decide whether the recommendation is likely to have the predicted result. Be sure to explain how the answers to these questions would help to evaluate the recommendation. The writer of this letter, who proposes prohibiting skateboarding in Central Plaza to decrease trash and vandalism and to increase business to its previous level, proposes an interesting argument. However, there are many questions that must be answered in order to decide whether or not to move forward with a corrective plan of action. While there could be a correlation between the factors that are brought to light, there could also be other plausible explanations as to why business has decreased in Central Plaza. An important question to ask is if things have changed over time, meaning has the economy taken a turn for the worse? This could explain why business has decreased in Central Plaza. If people are facing hardships they are less likely to spend money frivolously or on things they “want” instead of “need.” Store popularity could change over time as well—stores that were once popular in the past may not be popular now or in the future. People may have found new stores that they like to shop at rather than ones that have been around for a few years. The author of the letter also uses vague terminology, such as “increased dramatically” and “return business to its previous level”. It would be important to know how much skateboarding, trash, and vandalism have increased over the past two years and what the previously high levels of business were and what the levels are now to see how much business has actually dropped. Additionally, the writer implies that throughout the plaza the amount of skateboarders, vandalism, and litter has increased. However, it is never explicitly stated that the skateboarders have caused the litter and the vandalism, just that both have increased. So how do we know that if the city prohibits skateboarding that vandalism will decreased and business will increase? We need to know who or what is causing the increase in vandalism and litter and if skateboarding is really the problem. Maybe there aren’t enough trashcans for all the litter or the trashcans aren’t being emptied enough? Asking shoppers and store owners would be a good start to figuring out why business is decreasing and what they perceive to be the key problems. A cause and effect relationship cannot be assumed, because there are many assumptions made without proper evidence to back them up. Any owner wants their business to flourish, but in order to get to the root of the problem we must obtain information that will help make a well informed and valid decision. These are some of the questions that must be answered in order to make a proper decision as to whether or not to create a plan of action to help Central Plaza increase in business back to its previous levels.

I made this video to help English learners understand the difference between "come" and "go." Let me know your thoughts!

Hi! Brent It says - Subordinate Clauses don't have Subject or Verb and don't stand on its own as a meaningful sentence. Ex - When the auditors left. Help me in understanding this. In above example, aren't 'auditors' the subject. Isn't 'left' a verb form. Yes, the sentence isn't making any sense though. Is this an example of a Subordinate Clause? What if we drop 'when' and rewrite it as 'The auditors left'