Not yet clear but better …here I have these confusions
>>>A sudden increase in the **production **of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa occurred
is it some workers producing ? or it was available there in nature ? I would guess some artists are producing them.
>>>Historians explain this increase as the **result **of an area opening up as a new source of ivory
how come a increase could be a RESULT of an area opening up as new source ?
we write RESULT is for some action . For example , Its is the result of her misconduct.
here the result is the action of misconduct.
But here , it says “**result **of an area opening up as a new source of ivory”
How come a **production **could be the result of of an area opening up ?
please comment at this part
>>>that the important medieval trade between North Africa and East Africa began at this period.
is not it a disjoint sentence ? does it have any connection to the rest of the para ?
Are they saying production of ivory increased because of import / export trade ? otherwise , how its related to the other parts of the para ? It seems to me , this is a disjoint part.
“Production” refers to “artifacts” in this sentence. Although “production” doesn’t *always *refer to man-made items, it *usually *does. Moreover, “artifacts,” when used in the sense meant here, are nearly always made by people. So yes, here “elephant ivory artifacts” are being produced by people.
“Result” implies some cause-and-effect relationship. For example: “Helen was jailed as a result of her misconduct.” This means Helen did something bad (misconduct), and BECAUSE she did something bad, she was jailed.
However, note that the relationship between the cause and effect does not have to be direct. In the simple example above, “Helen” wasn’t jailed directly because of her misconduct. In fact:
Helen did something bad.
BECAUSE Helen did something bad, the police investigated.
BECAUSE the police investigated, they found Helen was responsible.
BECAUSE the police found Helen was responsible, they arrested her.
BECAUSE they arrested her, she went to trial.
BECAUSE she went to trial. she was found guilty.
BECAUSE she was found guilty, the judge sentenced her to jail.
BECAUSE the judge sentenced her to jail, Helen was jailed.
We just simplify that whole string, because everyone understands the process, and “Helen was jailed as a result of her misconduct” implies everything in the middle.
In the same way, “this [increase in the production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa] is the result of an area opening up as a new source of ivory” means:
An area opened up that was a new source of ivory.
BECAUSE the area opened up, MORE ivory was available in the Mediterranean coast of North Africa.
BECAUSE more ivory came to the Mediterranean coast of North Africa, it was cheaper/easier to get.
BECAUSE ivory was cheaper/easier to get, production of elephant ivory artifacts increased.
Again, we simplify the whole string and say “this [increase in the production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa] is the result of an area opening up as a new source of ivory” implies everything in the middle.
This is unclear writing on the part of the author. The author earlier mentions “an area opening up as a new source of ivory.” “Opening up” means “becoming accessible.” However, the author doesn’t say *how *the area opened up, nor to whom.
When I originally read the paragraph, I assumed “opening up” meant “becoming accessible to any people who wanted ivory.” However, after re-reading, I assume the author meant “becoming accessible to people on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa.”
Note that “opening up” or “becoming accessible” doesn’t necessarily mean that the people to whom the area “opens up” are physically going there, it just means that the people can access the area in some way. Here, the author is arguing that the “area opening up as a new source of ivory” opens to the people “on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa” because trade has “opened” the area up. Thus the last phrase summarizes his argument:
Production of elephant ivory artifacts on the Mediterranean coast of North Africa increased.
It increased because some new area supplying ivory opened up.
The “new area” was East Africa, and the increase in supply was because of trade ties between North and East Africa.
That was very nice …very much detailed explanation.
Please look at this English text …
Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfi tes, including those that are commonly added to wine as preservatives. However, since there are several winemakers who [COLOR=“Red”]add sulfi tes to none of the wines they produce, people who would like to drink wine but are allergic to sulfi tes can drink wines produced by these winemakers without risking an allergic reaction to sulfites.[/COLOR]
“Add” , “to none” => no addition …is not it ? there is no sulfite in the wine then ?
construction is complicated.
The clause “who add sulfites to none of the wines they produce” could also be written, “who do not add sulfites to any of the wines they produce”. It’s the same meaning, but they have chosen the phrasing with fewer words.
Yes, it is complicated and seems somewhat clumsy to me. It looks as if the writer is being paid by the word.
Many people suffer an allergic reaction to certain sulfites that are used in winemaking as preservatives. However, several winemakers do not add any sulfites and sufferers can drink their wines without risk.
No, it strikes me as being an academic style of writing, where the writer is being careful about being very precise and unambiguous. In particular, the sulphites that cause the allergic reaction are not only used as preservatives in wine. Further, in the second sentence, “sufferers can drink their wines” is ambiguous, because “their” could refer back to the sufferers or to the winemakers: obviously, only one of those makes much sense, but you have to pause a moment, because “their” does not refer back to the closest named group of people.
It could be something such as where the facts are known and undisputed but inferences drawn from these fact may change because of advances in knowledge.
If, for example, it was a court, it could be that a legal precedent had been set that meant that the court would draw different inferences from one set of data to those that had been drawn when the evidence was initially presented when the case was first heard.
“Evidence” is information or objects that are used to form a conclusion or judgment. You will often see “evidence” used in a legal context as information presented at a trial, but it can also be used in a scientific context (evidence that proves a scientific theory), or in any other context where one forms a conclusion.
“Reinterpret” means something like “to explain again in a different way.”
“Reinterpret the evidence” would mean something like “use the data one previously had to come to a *different *conclusion than one originally did.” Often the same set of evidence may support different conclusions, and one’s first conclusion winds up being erroneous.
For example, suppose I told you that Jim had been shot. Suppose I also told you that another man, Tom, was in the same room with Jim, had a gun, searched Jim’s pockets, and took Jim’s wallet. You might, from this evidence, conclude that Tom shot Jim.
However, suppose I *also *told you that Tom was a policeman, and only come into the room after I called the police. Now you might *reinterpret the evidence *to conclude that Tom was investigating the crime. This is a rather silly and simple example, but it demonstrates how (in this case) you might reinterpret evidence in light of additional facts to reach a different conclusion.
so, with the help of **extra **data , the conclusion is changing .
umm…I thought the other way you know . I thought its **same **data , but different people are concluding different way …my notion was “reinterpret” = revisit the case again ( No extra data or evidence)
There must be some reason for revisiting the case.
That must come from extra data of one sort or another.
Either new information has come to light - such as the ‘Tom is a policeman’ above, or perhaps that a witness has been found to have perjured themselves or data (information) about some procedure. (e.g. if it were discovered that something should be soaked for a day before performing some test and evidence had been used where this procedure hadn’t been followed’.)
In the example I gave, I was asking you to reinterpret the old evidence because you found some new evidence. The evidence that you are reinterpreting is all old evidence, but you have to reinterpret it because the conclusion you formed originally does not fit the new evidence.
It’s not necessary to have new evidence before reinterpreting the old–so you could “revisit the case again” with “no extra data or evidence”–but that would be unusual only because people don’t re-examine earlier conclusions for no particular reason.
Please look at this English Text…
Businesses are suffering because of a lack of money available for development loans. To help businesses, the government plans to modify the income-tax structure in order to induce individual taxpayers to put a larger portion of their incomes into retirement savings accounts, because as more money is deposited in such accounts, more money becomes available to borrowers.
However , the plan will not be effective When levels of personal retirement savings increase, consumer borrowing always increases correspondingly.
I’m not clear with RED PART. I don’t agree with that. IF more money goes to the bank savings , then bank will be able to provide more business loan …is not it ? I don’t understand why the RED part says plan will not be effective. where is the catch ?
The author is claiming that “consumer borrowing” increases correspondingly when “personal retirement savings increase.” “Consumer borrowing” means borrowing by individuals rather than businesses.
The catch here is correspondingly. “Correspondingly” means “in a similar way.” The author is implying that if, for example, personal retirement savings increase by one billion dollars, then consumer borrowing will also increase by one billion dollars, leaving no money left for businesses. Since no money is left, the plan is not effective.
This is confusing and poorly written because “correspondingly” means “in a similar way,” NOT “in exactly the same way.” For example, I can say, “When my company makes a profit, my salary goes up correspondingly.” This does NOT mean that if my company makes one billion dollars, then my salary goes up by one billion dollars; it means that my income increases in a similar way to that of my company.
However, from context, the author is implying a “one to one correspondence;” in other words, the two quantities (personal retirement savings and consumer borrowing) are not just similar, they are the same.
