I have decided to keep all my posts at one place …only in this single thread. I know forum has many knowledgeable and helpful person . People who are helpful , please respond to my post AND others please don’t hijack the post, enjoy with something else!. I’m trying to learn.
could you please explain the meaning of this text …
The store manager responds to the owner by offering new evidence implying that the status quo is not incompatible with the owner’s goal.
what does status quo means ? is it a English word ? I am not comfortable with the sentence because I’m not clear with that word.
Ok, the majestic, that’s better. I think we can allow one thread. Just don’t keep starting new threads for every single question you have.
I have also edited the title to indicate the nature of this thread.
If Duckster’s link to Wikipedia didn’t provide a clear answer, the status quo refers to the way things are now. The normal accepted situation. The way things usually are. How things are done currently. The Wiki article isn’t very clear to a non english reader.
Status is Latin. It means state, and status quo means the state now.
To change the status quo is to go against the traditional way of doing things. or more correctly, they way they are being done now.
is not “not incompatible” ==> compatible ? [ I just removed negative from both ]
I find it very odd kind of usage …two negative together …anyway
So, I simplify this way then
*The store manager responds to the owner by offering new evidence implying that the present system is compatible with the owner’s goal.
*
I just removed those two hard words from the sentence and this becomes now simple to understand.
I am comfortable with this.
“Not incompatible” does not necessarily mean “compatible.”
Imagine that the owner is standing in the middle of a football field that runs north-south. His goal is to be on the north end of the field, but he doesn’t care how far east or west he is. Look at the four directions in which he could move, and decide which directions are compatible or incompatible with his goal.
If he moves north, that’s compatible with his goal, because he is moving in the direction that he wants to go.
If he moves south, that is incompatible with his goal, because he is moving away from the place where he wants to be.
If he moves east or west, that is neither a step towards his goal, nor a step away from his goal. This is “not incompatible,” because he’s is not actively doing anything to prevent himself from reaching the goal. Still, moving to the east or west does not get him any closer to where he wants to be.
I think that in the context of the sentence themajestic was examining, his removal of the two negatives works well in conveying the meaning of the sentence. His interpretation is not unreasonable.
**In two months, the legal minimum wage in the country of Kirlandia will increase from five Kirlandic dollars (KD 5.00) per hour to KD 5.50 per hour. Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up. In fact its impact on wages will probably be negligible, since only a very small proportion of all Kirlandic workers are currently receiving less than KD5.50 per hour.
**
Here is what I don’t understand “**its impact on wages will probably be negligible **”
I’have confusion as to what is negligible in this context…
I feel two cases here for the meaning .
(1)does it trying to say that the impact of wage hike will **not **drive inflation rate up ?
(2)does it trying to say that the wage hike will not cost the government much burden , because there are small proportion of all Kirlandic workers .
I am not able to catch up the intended meaning in this context.
Actually, both. The increase will probably not cause inflation, because the wage hike will only affect a small number of workers. It will only affect those few that work at minimum wage.
Negligible means that the number is so small that it doesn’t even matter. So, your second definition is most correct.
A few other examples of “negligible”:
An item costs $99.99. You pay with $100 and tell the cashier to keep the change because it is negligible.
There’s a huge forest fire going on and a fire fighter runs in with only an eye dropper. The fire chief tells him to not even bother, since the effect on the fire would only be negligible.
Due to the negligible increase in unemployment, the tax cut has been repealed.
This is a bit complicated, because some of the meaning in this passage is implied, rather than stated.
First, let’s step through the second sentence. “Opponents of this increase have argued that the resulting rise in wages will drive the inflation rate up.” What this means is that opponents argue that: 1. The increase of minimum wage will result in a general rise of wages, AND 2. the general rise of wages will result in an increase of inflation.
The last sentence says, explicitly, that the increase of minimum wage will have a negligible effect on wages in general. Thus, argument number 1 above (the increase of minimum wage will result in a general rise of wages) is not true. That’s explicitly what the sentence says, but of course it ALSO implies that, since there will be no general rise of wages, there will be no increase in inflation (which is argument number 2).
**
Most of the gains in life expectancy in the last 150 years have come from reductions in the number of
infants who die in their first year of life.
**
how come this be true ? I smell there is math behind this …is not it ? I don’t understand how there could be a gains in life expectancy when the number of infants die.
life expectancy is the average . we divide by the number of living human. now if the infants die , this number will decrease resulting the average higher …so , there can not be a gain!
Am I missing something ? Could you please explain this part.
