07:05 Feb 2, 2005 |
English language (monolingual) [PRO] General / Conversation / Greetings / Letters | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Misiaczek Local time: 18:45 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
SUMMARY OF ALL EXPLANATIONS PROVIDED | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
5 +1 | arranged |
| ||
5 +1 | set up beforehand |
| ||
1 +4 | present |
| ||
4 | established; drawn |
| ||
4 | I think it is indeed "preset" |
|
Discussion entries: 2 | |
---|---|
arranged Explanation: Good luck! |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
established; drawn Explanation: No division between the organizations was drawn on the battlefield |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
set up beforehand Explanation: set up (organized) beforehand (in advance) |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
I think it is indeed "preset" Explanation: and means that they would fight side by side without any pre-established hierarchy, merging together as one unit for a common cause. No preordained pecking order |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
present Explanation: Sounds strange to me. Could it be a typo? Is it the kind of text with printing errors? -------------------------------------------------- Note added at 7 hrs 38 mins (2005-02-02 14:43:32 GMT) -------------------------------------------------- Now that everyone\'s agreeing, I\'m having second thoughts. I think we can agree that the English is wrong. But the other (advanced planning) meaning would make sense if we rephrased the sentence thusly: \"There would be no preset division ... on the battlefield.\" The \"would\" in the previous sentence also makes it sound as if they are talking about advanced planning. Would be interesting to know if the author is a native speaker and if the text is one that is likely to have typos. There must be an easier way of making a living. :) |
| |