English test! help me pleaz!!!

Thanks for the reply, but somehow, I would say that I''m not 100% satisfied with your answers and if those answers were taken from books, that''s even worse.

Thanks for the reply, but somehow, I would say that I''m not 100% satisfied with your answers and if those answers were taken from books, that''s even worse.

Mọi người cho em hỏi 1 chút về phrasal verb, còn mấy câu chưa làm được. Những chỗ nghiêng là từ phải được thay thế = 1 phrasal verb, những chỗ viết hoa là phrasal verb em chọn. mọi người giúp cái nhé! Thanx.
1. Since it was his first offence, he was not punished/ allowed to go free LET OFF
2. It is very expensive to maintain/ look after a large house nowadays. WATCH OVER
3. Many teenagers quit school before graduation and regret it later. GO AWAY FROM
4. Mike and Marry Elen will be very happy when they finish writing their book. CAU NAY EM CHIU
5. The police are approaching the roobers'' hide out. CAU NAY CUNG KHONG BIET NOT.
6. The mountain climbers grasped the rope tightly to avoid falling. ???
7. Henry was so upset at the sight of his injured daughter that he fainted. ???
8. Procter and Gamble is testing a new product and has sent everyone a sample. ???
Với cả cho em hỏi luôn cái này:
On + Ving và In + Ving đều có nghĩa là When S + V, thế khi nào dùng on và khi nào dùng in ạ? 2 cái này không thay thế cho nhau được đúng ko? Vì lỗi sai của bài đấy là chuyển từ on --> in mà. Uhm, cái này có context nhưng mà bài này lâu lâu rồi, ko biết em để đâu.
So close no matter how far... I have you in my heart and nothing else matters...

Mọi người cho em hỏi 1 chút về phrasal verb, còn mấy câu chưa làm được. Những chỗ nghiêng là từ phải được thay thế = 1 phrasal verb, những chỗ viết hoa là phrasal verb em chọn. mọi người giúp cái nhé! Thanx.
1. Since it was his first offence, he was not punished/ allowed to go free LET OFF
2. It is very expensive to maintain/ look after a large house nowadays. WATCH OVER
3. Many teenagers quit school before graduation and regret it later. GO AWAY FROM
4. Mike and Marry Elen will be very happy when they finish writing their book. CAU NAY EM CHIU
5. The police are approaching the roobers'' hide out. CAU NAY CUNG KHONG BIET NOT.
6. The mountain climbers grasped the rope tightly to avoid falling. ???
7. Henry was so upset at the sight of his injured daughter that he fainted. ???
8. Procter and Gamble is testing a new product and has sent everyone a sample. ???
Với cả cho em hỏi luôn cái này:
On + Ving và In + Ving đều có nghĩa là When S + V, thế khi nào dùng on và khi nào dùng in ạ? 2 cái này không thay thế cho nhau được đúng ko? Vì lỗi sai của bài đấy là chuyển từ on --> in mà. Uhm, cái này có context nhưng mà bài này lâu lâu rồi, ko biết em để đâu.
So close no matter how far... I have you in my heart and nothing else matters...

there''s no obvious rule for using in + Ving or on + Ving (even if there is, the exceptions still jump down your throat and that''s why English sucks). To my understanding, those cases totally depend on the verb and the rest of the sentence.
Here are some of my suggestions for the phrasal verb:
1. Perfect choice
2. Should be "take care of" instead of "Watch over" which only means stare at the house and not doing anything about it!
3. "Go away from" is bad, it doesn''t fit the sentence. "drop out of" is much better.
4 finishing = get to the end of?? Sorry, i can''t firgure this one out either
5 approaching = getting close to
6 grasped = held on to
7 fainted = passed out
8 testing = trying out
To Chuot_con: what on Earth are you on about?? Under no circumtances i have the intention of putting anyone down (and if i have accidentally done that, please accept my appology). I was just curious about the use of "mother f***ing and that''s all ). Words alone don''t hurt anyone, but wrong interpretion does!

there''s no obvious rule for using in + Ving or on + Ving (even if there is, the exceptions still jump down your throat and that''s why English sucks). To my understanding, those cases totally depend on the verb and the rest of the sentence.
Here are some of my suggestions for the phrasal verb:
1. Perfect choice
2. Should be "take care of" instead of "Watch over" which only means stare at the house and not doing anything about it!
3. "Go away from" is bad, it doesn''t fit the sentence. "drop out of" is much better.
4 finishing = get to the end of?? Sorry, i can''t firgure this one out either
5 approaching = getting close to
6 grasped = held on to
7 fainted = passed out
8 testing = trying out
To Chuot_con: what on Earth are you on about?? Under no circumtances i have the intention of putting anyone down (and if i have accidentally done that, please accept my appology). I was just curious about the use of "mother f***ing and that''s all ). Words alone don''t hurt anyone, but wrong interpretion does!

CẤP CỨU ................Cứu tớ với, tớ học tiếng Đứcs từ nhỏ, bay giờ đang ở Phápm toàn học bàng tiếng pháp, hix, năm nay nẵm cuối, trường bắt học TA mà ko dạy ngữ pháp gì cả, toàn tương text vào rồi bắt thảo luận. Vói một người bắt đầu học như tớ là quá khó hixhix
Thú 2 này đến lượt tớ phải thảo luận trước lớp, chết mất thôi
Chủ đề thầy cho đọc là bài sau : và bắt dựa vào bài text để thảo luận về 1 trong 3 chủ đề sau , tớ biết học tiếng ko ai giúp duoc, nhưng cái này ngoài khả năng của tớ , bạn nào có thể giúp được tớ không ạ, nếy không các bạn cho tớ xin ý kiến và nêu đại ý giúp tớ ( bằng TA ạ ) , hix, lo quá ạ
DEBATE ( chon 1 trong 3 chủ đề để thảo luận )
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
3. Insurance should always be compulsorybài TEXT
bài TEXT
the loch Ness Monster
A risk can be insured also when no statistics is available, and even when no theoretical analysis seems possible. This is brought out by the following case reported by Brown (1973):
In 1971 the whisky distillery Cutty Sark offers an award of one million pounds for the capture of the monster assumed to live in Loch Ness. Apparently Cutty Sark has second thoughts about the liability this promise could lead to, and approached Lloyd?Ts about insurance. As usual Lloyd?Ts was obliging, and agreed to cover the risk against a premium of £2.500. From the insurance contract or ?oslip?, reproduced in Brown?Ts book, it is evident that Lloyd?Ts observed all the proper forms. It is stated that the risk is covered only if the monster is captured alive between 1st May 1971 and 30th April 1972. Further the slip says:
?oAs far as this insurance is concerned the Loch Ness Monster shall be deemed to be:
1) In excess of 20 feet in length
2) Acceptable as the Loch Ness monster to the curators of the Natural History Museum, London?
As the last con***ion the underwriters added the standard clause in marine insurance that if the sum insured should be paid, the monster would become the property of the underwriters at Lloyd?Ts. This con***ion should make the insurance contract virtually risk-free to the underwriters.
One must assume that there were a number of underwriters at Lloyd?Ts who were firmly convinced that there was no monster in Loch Ness, and hence should be willing to accept the whole risk at a nominal premium. They were however cautious. The leading underwriter accepted to cover only 7, 5% of the risk, and none of his colleagues accepted a higher share. The explanation of this caution may be that at the time there were a committee at Lloyd?Ts monitored the underwriting of members. If this committee found that an underwriter had accepted risks which were not commensurate with his resources, it would give him a polite warning. It is possible that there was some members of this committee who did not believe that the insurance cover given to Cutty Sark was risk-less, and hence might suggest that the underwriter should reduce their engagement in others risk.
As for Cutty Sark, somebody in the top management of the company must have believed that there might be a monster in Loch Ness, and that the probability that it should be captured during the next twelve months was not negligible.
The example above may lead one to believe that every risk is insurable. In theory this may be true, but in practice it is not.
DEBATE
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
3. Insurance should always be compulsory?
Được tu_lanh sửa chữa / chuyển vào 04:47 ngày 04/12/2003

CẤP CỨU ................Cứu tớ với, tớ học tiếng Đứcs từ nhỏ, bay giờ đang ở Phápm toàn học bàng tiếng pháp, hix, năm nay nẵm cuối, trường bắt học TA mà ko dạy ngữ pháp gì cả, toàn tương text vào rồi bắt thảo luận. Vói một người bắt đầu học như tớ là quá khó hixhix
Thú 2 này đến lượt tớ phải thảo luận trước lớp, chết mất thôi
Chủ đề thầy cho đọc là bài sau : và bắt dựa vào bài text để thảo luận về 1 trong 3 chủ đề sau , tớ biết học tiếng ko ai giúp duoc, nhưng cái này ngoài khả năng của tớ , bạn nào có thể giúp được tớ không ạ, nếy không các bạn cho tớ xin ý kiến và nêu đại ý giúp tớ ( bằng TA ạ ) , hix, lo quá ạ
DEBATE ( chon 1 trong 3 chủ đề để thảo luận )
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
3. Insurance should always be compulsorybài TEXT
bài TEXT
the loch Ness Monster
A risk can be insured also when no statistics is available, and even when no theoretical analysis seems possible. This is brought out by the following case reported by Brown (1973):
In 1971 the whisky distillery Cutty Sark offers an award of one million pounds for the capture of the monster assumed to live in Loch Ness. Apparently Cutty Sark has second thoughts about the liability this promise could lead to, and approached Lloyd?Ts about insurance. As usual Lloyd?Ts was obliging, and agreed to cover the risk against a premium of £2.500. From the insurance contract or ?oslip?, reproduced in Brown?Ts book, it is evident that Lloyd?Ts observed all the proper forms. It is stated that the risk is covered only if the monster is captured alive between 1st May 1971 and 30th April 1972. Further the slip says:
?oAs far as this insurance is concerned the Loch Ness Monster shall be deemed to be:
1) In excess of 20 feet in length
2) Acceptable as the Loch Ness monster to the curators of the Natural History Museum, London?
As the last con***ion the underwriters added the standard clause in marine insurance that if the sum insured should be paid, the monster would become the property of the underwriters at Lloyd?Ts. This con***ion should make the insurance contract virtually risk-free to the underwriters.
One must assume that there were a number of underwriters at Lloyd?Ts who were firmly convinced that there was no monster in Loch Ness, and hence should be willing to accept the whole risk at a nominal premium. They were however cautious. The leading underwriter accepted to cover only 7, 5% of the risk, and none of his colleagues accepted a higher share. The explanation of this caution may be that at the time there were a committee at Lloyd?Ts monitored the underwriting of members. If this committee found that an underwriter had accepted risks which were not commensurate with his resources, it would give him a polite warning. It is possible that there was some members of this committee who did not believe that the insurance cover given to Cutty Sark was risk-less, and hence might suggest that the underwriter should reduce their engagement in others risk.
As for Cutty Sark, somebody in the top management of the company must have believed that there might be a monster in Loch Ness, and that the probability that it should be captured during the next twelve months was not negligible.
The example above may lead one to believe that every risk is insurable. In theory this may be true, but in practice it is not.
DEBATE
1. Should it be a standard procedure for insurers to require that a person applying for an insurance policy should go through medical examination?
2. Is regulation of insurance companies necessary?
3. Insurance should always be compulsory?
Được tu_lanh sửa chữa / chuyển vào 04:47 ngày 04/12/2003

1. Many words are applicable here, such as: excused, pardoned, released, freed, acquitted, discharged (combined with was of course).
2. I aggree that -lookafter- is a much better choice.
3. -Drop out of- is the common phrased used for students quitting school, so again, nice choice there.
4. Complete, conclude, fulfill..however, complete sounds best.
5. Instead of ''approaching''? Okay..let''s see..impending.
6. For grasping? Clasp, clutch..both sound okay.
7. For which word are we replacing? Fainted? Collapse, loss of conciousness, seizure..collapse sounds good though.
8. Examining, experimenting, or analysing.
"Gomen nasai....demo..A****erui Sayuri-san.."

1. Many words are applicable here, such as: excused, pardoned, released, freed, acquitted, discharged (combined with was of course).
2. I aggree that -lookafter- is a much better choice.
3. -Drop out of- is the common phrased used for students quitting school, so again, nice choice there.
4. Complete, conclude, fulfill..however, complete sounds best.
5. Instead of ''approaching''? Okay..let''s see..impending.
6. For grasping? Clasp, clutch..both sound okay.
7. For which word are we replacing? Fainted? Collapse, loss of conciousness, seizure..collapse sounds good though.
8. Examining, experimenting, or analysing.
"Gomen nasai....demo..A****erui Sayuri-san.."