but delay is because of crowd …is not it ? get on / get off problem …time consuming …delay .
If we increase the number of trains in the subway , will that solve the delay problem ? my understanding is “NO” . because its a problem with the crowd and get on/get off problem.
but see the Transit authority is trying to solve this delay problem by increasing number of trains …thats very much doubtfull . Does it really solves the problem ?
Yes, I know you might say , if there are more number of trains then crowd will be less and eventually delay will decrease…but if there are more number of trains then there will be line clearing problem and another delay will come into.
Am I saying it correctly ?
see the para…
Crowding on Mooreville’s subway frequently leads to delays, because it is diffi cult for passengers to exit from the trains. Subway ridership is projected to increase by 20 percent over the next 10 years. The Mooreville Transit Authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period. Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase.
>>>Subway ridership is projected to increase by 20 percent over the next 10 years.
this means crowd will increase . more people will use subway in next 10 years.
>>>The Mooreville Transit Authority plans to increase the number of daily train trips by only 5 percent over the same period.
well , it says train trips …umm …this could be same trains more trips OR they are bringing new trains into the subway and engaging more trips.
But does this more trip really solve the delay problem now ?
>>>Officials predict that this increase is sufficient to ensure that the incidence of delays due to crowding does not increase
wow …they are giving gurantee that there will no delay in near future
It’s possible that adding more trains would lead to delays due to the tracks not being clear, but we don’t have enough information to know that. We don’t know how often trains run on those tracks today. If the trains run infrequently, and the tracks are empty for a significant amount of time between each train, then adding additional trains shouldn’t be a problem, from that standpoint.
It could be either. Buying additional train cars would likely be quite expensive, and they’d likely only do that if they didn’t have a sufficient number of cars to add additional trips. If they have enough cars currently (for example, if, at the end of each trip, a subway train currently sits idle for 30 minutes before being sent back out on a new trip), then they could “add more trains” by simply using their current train cars more frequently.
Well, actually, all they’re saying is that adding these trains will ensure that the delays which they are currently having (caused by the time spent in getting people on and off of busy trains) won’t get any worse in the future.
Many countries that are large consumers of sugarcane increased their production of sugarcane-based ethanol, yet their overall consumption of sugarcane decreased.
is it “yet” is properly used here ?
I read this way …
Many countries that are large consumers of sugarcane increased their production of sugarcane-based ethanol, HOWEVER their overall consumption of sugarcane decreased.
this means , they are using ethanol …sugarcane consumption decreased.
This is that same issue with “yet” that you ran into a few days ago.
“However” is possibly a bit more descriptive, but “yet” is commonly used in this case (at least in American English).
The main idea of the statement is that these countries increased their production of sugarcane-based ethanol, which you would expect would lead to an overall increase in their consumption of sugarcane. But, the opposite happened…their overall consumption of sugarcane actually decreased. The implication, of course, is that consumption of sugarcane for purposes other than making ethanol had decreased substantially.
Please look at this English text Davison River farmers are currently deciding between planting winter wheat this fall or spring wheat next spring. Winter wheat and spring wheat are usually about equally profitable. [COLOR=“Red”]Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River water for irrigation, per acre yields for winter wheat, though not for spring wheat, would be much lower than average.[/COLOR]
I have reading complexity on the read part . too many middleman making the meaning complicated and I’m not able to get the meaning.
>>>Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River >>water for irrigation, per acre yields for winter wheat, though not for spring >>wheat, would be much lower than average.
This is quite complicated construction.
I’m just removing one middleman…then it becomes
Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River water for irrigation though not for spring wheat, would be much lower than average.
— this is still unclear as this does not say what is lower than average . is it the river water much lower than average . This is still confusing.
How do we break and read these kind of odd construction ?
The subject of the sentence in red is “per acre yields”, and in that subject “yields” is a noun and “per acre” is a phrase acting as a adjective. This may be causing the confusion. “Per acre yields” means the quantities of the crop yielded for each acre being cropped.
Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River water for irrigation, per acre yields for winter wheat, though not for spring wheat, would be much lower than average.
Yes. The sentence is cumbersome. The clue is “per acre yields.” This means the amount of wheat you can harvest.
Winter wheat = Low yields.
Spring wheat = Larger yields.
“The government has restricted the use of irrigation water. This means that winter wheat will yield (on average) less per acre than spring wheat.”
It means that the per acre yield of the winter wheat would be much lower than average, but the per acre yield of the spring wheat would not be much lower than average, and the reason that’s true is because of restrictions on the use of Davidson River water for irrigation.
still have some confusion . Hence posting the same again…
Davison River farmers are currently deciding between planting winter wheat this fall or spring wheat next spring.Winter wheat and spring wheat are usually about equally profi table. Because of new government restrictions on the use of Davison River water for irrigation, per acre yields for winter wheat, though not for spring wheat, would be much lower than average. Therefore, planting spring wheat will be more profi table than planting winter wheat, since .the smaller-than-average size of a winter wheat harvest this year would not be compensated for by higher winter wheat prices.
>>>higher winter wheat prices
but is not they said “Winter wheat and spring wheat are usually about equally profitable” …does that not mean Winter wheat and spring wheat price are same ? how come we say winter wheat prices are higher ?
Winter wheat and spring wheat do not just refer to the planting season; they are actually different crops, and different wheat species, with different uses. As such, there are different markets for each type, and thus, different prices. Based on the context here, it sounds like the price for a bushel of winter wheat is generally higher than the price of a bushel of spring wheat.
I’m also guessing that winter wheat, at least in the area being described in the article you’re quoting, needs more artificial irrigation than spring wheat. This might be because of the typical levels of rainfall in that area during the winter wheat growing season, as opposed to the rainfall during the spring wheat growing season. It may also be that winter wheat requires more water than spring wheat (I have no idea if this is true or not).
There are no higher winter wheat prices, which is why they cannot compensate for the lower yield of wheat. If it had said ‘the higher winter wheat prices’ they would actually exist. Without a ‘the’, they are just hypothetical.
oh god , I had been assuming that Winter wheat for winter season and Spring wheat from Spring season . Are you saying these can be harvested in another season also and still would give a considerable yield ?
Well,I’m not a wheat specialist but I guess so
Also, smaller-than-average size of a winter wheat …also , I guess this means winter wheat is harvested by little amount
Please look at this English text … Some anthropologists study modern-day societies of foragers in an effort to learn about our ancient ancestors who were also foragers. A flaw in this strategy is that forager societies are extremely varied. Indeed, any forager society with which anthropologists are familiar has had considerable contact with modern, non-forager societies
is not “forage” = looking for food ?
what does a “forager society” means here ? is it a society who looks for food ?
this is quite awakward . I believe there has to be a different meaning of “forage” in this context.
This is the first time I’ve heard the phrase “forager society” used in this context but it appears to mean exactly what you guessed it did.
Basically it means a society which gathers food that’s already there (e.g. berries, scavenged kills from other animals) rather than farming or actively hunting animals for food.
The “any” would indicated that it means both ancient and modern ones but “familiar” implies first hand experience which would logically exclude ancient societies.
