Grammar 2.1.1 Answer Key

[Demetrius Dade]

Iam having a big trouble about answering questions like "Do you like swimming ?". Though, this is a very simple language, I've always thought that it is correct to answer by saying "Yes, I like swimming because..." or "No, I don't like it because...". But today, an IELTS tutor strictly underlined that I will lose mark, he said that it is grammatically incorrect to start with "Yes, I like..." Please note that the tutor doesn't claim it is not just inappropriate for IELTS, it is incorrect in general he says. I asked a native, who is also a teacher, there is a controversion as the second teacher said that it is grammaticaly correct to answer by saying "Yes, I like..." Please answer if it is grammaticaly correct or incorrect to answer a "Do you like sth/doing sth" question by beginning with "Yes, I like" in informal speaking. I'm not asking specifically for IELTS. What is the accepted view for it, what is the rule, is it really grammaticaly incorrect ? Thank you.

Your tutor could argue that the usage is a comma splice, where "yes/no" is the answer to the question and "I like/dislike..." elaborates on this answer in a separate clause which should be separated from the first word by a semicolon.

The first one is not in the passive voice, it is the continuous tense. You don't give us the context, but it looks like a prediction - that before long 'he' will be in a position of authority, the person that people have to answer to.

An answer negating a positive question is couched as a negative. An answer affirming a negative question in English is also couched as a negative. The answer depends not upon the form of the question, but the answerer's understanding of what is true.

-This grammar program includes levels 1 - 8. -Level equates to grade level.

-Program is typically taught 3 times a week. -Based on a 36-week school year.

-Contains approximately 108 lessons.

-For Levels 1 and 2, the learning and exercise portions are combined into one book for each level. For Levels 3 through 8, the learning portion is contained in a separate Student Manual, with the exercises located in a separate Student Workbook.

English is not my mother tongue so I am not very good at it.I use a translator tool to make my answer more efficient. Then I correct the grammar of the translated sentence using 'Grammarly extension'.

...Use of ChatGPT for content while its use is banned: The use ofChatGPT as a source for content on Stack Overflow is currently banned.Please see the Meta Stack Overflow question "Temporary policy: ChatGPTis banned". It is not permitted for you to use ChatGPT to createcontent on Stack Overflow during this ban....

As discussed in the comments, these tools were not the issue in this particular suspension. However, to answer the question of whether using tools such as translators or grammar checkers counts as AI-generated for the purposes of the AI-generated content ban:

Tools like translators or grammar checkers are allowed, provided that you wrote the input to them, or, if the source is text written by another human, you cite the original source in compliance with our referencing guidelines (uncited translated material would be considered plagiarism). Use of these tools on AI-generated input is not allowed, for the same reason that AI-generated answers are not allowed in the first place.

I use Grammarly to check virtually all my contributions. The detection rate is less than 0.01% on that content. Without checking the content you submitted, that had a high probability of being written by a AI, I can't comment more than that. What I can tell you is, content written by you then correct by Grammarly, the probability of that content being written by an AI is typically less than 0.1%.

The primary reason for the blanket ban on AI generated content is to allow people performing curation, both regular users and moderators, to detect and deal with AI-generated content on the basis that it was AI generated, rather than differentiating the content on "is this good/correct" vs "bad" or "this was an acceptable use" vs "this was an unacceptable use". The reason for this is that we, people doing curation on Stack Overflow, just don't have the available resources (i.e. the time of subject-matter experts) to make a finer-grained differentiation beyond "this was AI generated". Because of the nature of AI generated content, it takes orders of magnitude more time and effort (and level of expertise in the specific subject) to differentiate such content based on criteria beyond "this was AI generated". We, overall, just don't have and can not reasonably obtain the amount of time from subject mater experts in order to make those finer grained differentiations.

Unfortunately, 99.9% of the tens of thousands of posts which have been posted using AI generated content have been by people that appear to have just copied the question into the input of the AI generation and then copied the output (potentially with some edits) onto Stack Overflow. They do so without any attempt to verify that the response is accurate, or even self-consistent, and with no thought to the negative impact that doing that has, both on the asker and on the site.

So, unfortunately, yes, we have to ban the use by that 0.1% of users posting such content that is, in fact, generated using a tool-chain that might otherwise be acceptable, because the massive majority of people are not using the available tools in a reasonable manner and we just don't have the available curation resources to be able to differentiate, at the scale Stack Overflow operates, between those "potentially good" uses and the massive majority of use that is "bad".

Ultimately, allowing the flood of bad content that is very hard to determine is actually bad/inaccurate/incorrect, other than by someone who is already a subject matter expert, will kill the usefulness of Stack Overflow, as future readers would have to wade through a huge amount of crap in order to get to the content that's actually good. So, we must remove the bad content, even if that sacrifices a small amount of content that would have otherwise been acceptable.

The issue isn't "oh, people will need to work a little harder to do curation". It's that if AI generation was permitted, then it increases the need for time from experts doing curation by orders of magnitude and there's just no way to meet that need. AI generated content often reads as if it is great, but is actually bad/inaccurate/confusing. There have been various times when we've seen question askers, who usually are not experts, accept, award bounties, and (presumably) upvote AI generated answers, but then leave a comment like "this doesn't work". Thus, the additional resources need to already be experts in the specific technology and be critically evaluating such answers. Stack Overflow just doesn't have the necessary resources available to accomplish that and no way to get them.

We'd like to be able to support people using such toolchains where the base work is actually theirs and they have verified their answer. We just don't have a way that's possible while still being able to remove the 99.9% of content that detects as AI generated which is bad/inaccurate/not the work of the author. We're open to ways it might be possible to allow the use of at least some tools that don't cross over into actual AI generation of the underlying content, but we've seen nothing, including no viable suggestions from the community, that would actually work at the volumes at which Stack Overflow operates. [Note: what would be viable from our point of view would need to be something that requires no changes to the underlying site software, as development resources are very limited and getting Stack Overflow, the company, to make substantial changes is ... difficult and time-consuming.]

This is an evolving situation. There will be tools developed that use AI generation. Some of these tools could end up being quite beneficial to people in many situations. However, if they generate content that appears to be AI generated, then they are, effectively, banned, because, as mentioned above, we just don't have to the ability to do that differentiation at the scale Stack Overflow operates.

It would be nice to just be able to ask people what they were doing, get a truthful answer and then be able to differentiate the work based on that. However, A) we just don't have the resources to ask about each piece of detected AI content before removing it, and B) a large percentage of "bad actors" lie and do so repeatedly and vociferously. It would be really nice if those facts weren't the case, but they are.

Commonly available AI generation that routinely produces "eloquent bullshit" that reads well to humans is a new capability. It's yet to be seen how we, as a society, will adapt to that capability being available. It's quite unclear what level of AI assistance/generation society will, in general, consider to be acceptable for someone to claim as their own work, or use in a way where they, in the past, would have been expected to be the sole author. Such tools will continue to improve and what uses/level of use society will consider acceptable will change over time.

However, from Stack Overflow's point of view, until such time as such tools the vast majority of the time generate actually correct answers, or answers which can be quickly and easily be identified as good/bad, we must continue to ban such content and remove it when it's detected.

Like most people, you probably learned the basic rules of grammar in school. And like many others, you've probably forgotten much of what you learned. Is it bad to end a sentence with a preposition? Are there hard and fast rules for when to use who, that, or which? Where do the comma and apostrophe go?

Teachers and instructors expect your papers to be error-free. But let's face it, even native English speakers are prone to silly mistakes. That's why proofreading is absolutely critical in ensuring your work is perfect.

3a8082e126