Please look at this Text…
Whether there are insect pests that sometimes reduce feed-corn yields, but against which commonly used insecticides and the genetic modification are equally ineffective
I’m getting confused with this text.
trouble is here
but against which commonly used insecticides and the genetic modification are equally ineffective
against which work upon what ? feed-corn yields or insect pests
equally ineffective to what ?
I’m breaking down this way…
This is a little hard to parse, because 1) you haven’t given the entire sentence, 2) it’s not a great example of writing, anyway, and 3) there seems to be an extraneous “the” in front of “genetic,” which is confusing. Nonetheless…
The “commonly used insecticides and the genetic modification” are ineffective against “insect pests.” You can tell this because “insect pests” is the subject of the first phrase, and the second phrase is discussing the subject of the first.
“Insecticides and the genetic modification” are equally ineffective compared to each other. in other words, insecticides are just as ineffective as genetic modification, and genetic modification is just as ineffective as insecticides.
yes…that makes sense. feeling comfortable now.
Please look at this English text…
In the past the country of Malvernia has relied heavily on imported oil. Malvernia recently implemented a program to [COLOR=“Red”]convert heating systems from oil to natural gas. Malvernia currently produces more natural gas each year than it uses, and oil production in Malvernian oil fields is increasing at a steady pace. If these trends in fuel production and usage continue, therefore, Malvernian reliance on foreign sources for fuel is likely to decline soon.[/COLOR]
convert heating systems from oil to natural gas. …what is this ?
convert heating systems means ? This part is confusing. Could you please give me an example to understand it better way ? how the conversion of heating systems is related with oil and natural gas ?
Oil is burned as a heating fuel.
Natural gas is burned as a heating fuel.
Oil is a liquid.
Natural gas (methane) is a gas.
The method of delivery, and the burning temperature are different for these different fuels. So, you need to convert (change) some of the furnace parts.
Not yet clear . I’m putting my comments in your post.
In this instance, yes the heating system is a furnace.
I don’t know all of the technical aspects behind the conversion; I thought this was an English thread, not a technical thread on furnace conversions. I would suggest Googling or opening another thread if you really need to know which furnace parts need to be changed. I would guess that the actual burner would be different, as would pipe diameters but I’m not familiar with this process.
Yes. I too did not want to know technical aspect too ! wanted to know English part 
look at the sentence again on red parts…
>>Malvernia recently implemented a program to convert heating systems from oil to natural gas.
I wanted to know the possible meaning of these red markers .
A lot of people in Malvernia had furnaces that burned oil for heat in the winter. The government wanted them to use natural gas instead, so they started a program that might have, say, given tax incentives or forced people to convert or required all new constructions to use natural gas - it doesn’t say how the program works, just that there’s a program.
A heating system is a system whose purpose is to generate heat. So it would not be an engine, for instance. It could be a furnace, or a hot water heater, and integrated Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning system.
One thing I notice from this thread is that you are often confused by broad, general nouns.
I think that themajestic has a pretty good understanding of English at this point; certainly better than 50% of American high school students. Wherever these sentences are coming from (ESL study guide, economics textbook, LSAT tests, etc), it’s obvious that the emphasis is not on quality and clarity. The writers seem to overgeneralize a lot, which is why themajestic keeps running into problematic broad nouns.
Another problem seems to be dense noun phrase constructions where the root words can appear in nouns, verbs, and adjectives. So s/he will get the basic meaning of individual words, but not what they’re specifically doing in the sentence. But I wouldn’t be surprised if even the words themselves don’t always know what they’re doing in these sentences.
One thing I would point out, themajestic, is that these text samples all seem to be intended to teach people something they didn’t know, or explain a disagreement. So, besides doing separate research on the more technical facts and concepts, as Leaffan said, keep in mind that the thing you don’t understand might be the exact thing that the text is trying to teach you or provide an alternate explanation for.
I agree, I was simply pointing out a certain commonality with many of his questions. I believe themajestic is studying for the MCAT, and might find the observation helpful in directing his studies.
Thanks …but still there is a confusion .
Let me explain where I’m facing problem .
>>>*Malvernia recently implemented a program to convert heating systems from oil to natural gas. *
Ok…Now people can use natural gas to generate heat . they used oil earlier to generate heat…its a change …heating systems are now accepting natural gas to generate heat …earlier they accepted oil only to generate heat…i guess program = technical process here .
>>>>Malvernia currently produces more natural gas each year than
it uses, and oil production in Malvernian oil fi elds is increasing at a steady pace. If these trends in fuel production and usage continue, therefore, Malvernian reliance on foreign sources for fuel is likely to decline soon.
Please see , both the oil & natural gas which are used to generate heat is rising ,and so Malvernian reliance on foreign sources for fuel is likely to decline soon. This is not because of heating systems conversions…its purely because of fuel sources are rising now …I don’t see the connection of heating systems conversions and the decline of import of oil.
Does it have any implicit connection anywhere I’m missing ?
Yes.
The author is saying that, right now, Malvernia exports natural gas and *imports *oil. They are doing two things to decrease their oil imports:
Both of these things mean they need to import less oil.
The paragraph does NOT say that natural gas production is rising, only that *oil *production is rising.
Thanks for the post . Here are my comments in red …
“It produces more than it uses,” does not mean that production is rising. It means that more is being produced than is being used. Example.
Production = 1 million cubic meters of gas.
Consumption = 800,000 cubic meters of gas.
Regarding the export of gas, I believe that zut inferred this from the above. I mean, the surplus goes somewhere, right?
For the production to be rising, Malvernia must continually produce more and more each year, regardless of the consumption. Understand?
Thanks for the post . my comments are in blue.
I think I see your confusion.
“Natural gas” is not made from oil. It’s methane, or propane, or some sort of flammable gaseous fuel.
So, the malvernians ARE NOT making oil themselves. They are harvesting natural gas, a completely different type of fuel (this is why a “conversion” is needed - the same equipment does not burn both types of fuel).
As Leaffan says, I inferred it from “Malvernia currently produces more natural gas each year than it uses.” If the country uses less than it makes, the rest has to go somewhere–either they’re selling it or they’re stockpiling it, and I inferred that they’re selling it.
Aha! I see the English usage question here. *If *the sentence said “Malvernia currently produces more natural gas each year,” and nothing else, you would be right. “Produces more natural gas each year” = “Every year it makes more than it did the last year.”
However, the sentence says “Malvernia currently produces more natural gas each year than it uses.” This means the same thing as “every year, Malvernia uses less natural gas than it produces.” The English words to pay attention to are “produces more natural gas than it uses;” the fact that “each year” gets stuck in the middle doesn’t change the meaning (although I see how it’s confusin).
Sort of. The Malvernians are doing *two *seperate things to decrease reliance on foreign sources for fuel. One thing is increasing oil production, and that alone would cause a decrease in reliance on foreign sources for fuel, and the paragraph stands.
But they are also converting heating systems, and that also would cause a decrease in reliance on foreign sources for fuel.
wonderful .I loved that . I am feeling comfortable now . Thanks for your time.
Here is another text…
Although the earliest surviving Greek inscriptions written in an alphabet date from the eighth century B.C., the fact that the text of these Greek inscriptions sometimes runs from right to left and sometimes from left to right indicates that the Greeks adopted alphabetic writing at least two centuries before these inscriptions were produced. After all, the Greeks learned alphabetic writing from the Phoenicians, and presumably, along with the alphabet, they also adopted the then-current Phoenician practice with respect to the direction of text. And although Phoenician writing was originally inconsistent in direction, by the eighth century B.C. Phoenician was consistently written from right to left and had been for about two centuries.
>>>>sometimes runs from right to left and sometimes from left to rightindicates
>>>Phoenician was consistently written from right to left …there is NO **left to right ** here !
So, I think Greek inscriptions are not adopted from Phoenicians but the para seems to argue that .
please comment .