Phrases and practice

Learn a useful phrase in context, listen to its pronunciation and practise saying it.

• Omitting an inconvenient detail leaves the audience with an account that is technically true yet materially incomplete.C2 · #1326
• Delivered with exaggerated solemnity, 'what a surprise' sounds ironic here, rather than genuinely astonished.C2 · #1327
• Let my restraint not be mistaken for tacit approval.C2 · #1328
• Allow me to question the choice itself: both options presuppose something that has yet to be demonstrated.C2 · #1329
• The fact that a claim withstands criticism does not absolve its author of the obligation to justify it.C2 · #1330
• Since the conclusions are conditional, let us remove the appearance of absolute certainty from the summary.C2 · #1331
• The author concedes a point to an opponent only to undermine the significance of that concession in the next sentence.C2 · #1332
• Leaving something unsaid is more powerful here than a literal description, because it forces the reader to supply the missing link.C2 · #1333
• Let us preserve the original's ambiguity rather than resolve in translation what the author deliberately left open.C2 · #1334
• Not every sign of the narrator's distance is evidence that they ultimately reject the character's views.C2 · #1335
• Shifting the emphasis from 'whether' to 'when' smuggles in the assumption that the decision has already been made.C2 · #1336
• The question suggests an answer before the interlocutor has had a chance to articulate a position of their own.C2 · #1337
• If we apply stricter criteria to our opponents, our impartiality remains no more than a declaration.C2 · #1338
• The size of the discrepancy warrants checking the measurements again, but does not in itself indicate which result is wrong.C2 · #1339
• We cannot equate the absence of a phenomenon in our sample with proof that it does not exist.C2 · #1340
• The more precise an estimate appears, the easier it is to overlook the uncertainty embedded in its assumptions.C2 · #1341
• Let us first agree on what will count as meeting the condition, so that we do not later renegotiate the meaning of our consent retrospectively.C2 · #1342
• My willingness to compromise ends where I would be held responsible for other people's decisions without the right to challenge them.C2 · #1343
• The proposed safeguard would be illusory if its activation depended solely on the party whose actions it is intended to constrain.C2 · #1344
• A consensus achieved by leaving disagreements unspoken may unravel at the first attempt to implement the agreements.C2 · #1345
• For some, institutional continuity is a sign of stability; for others, it is evidence of an inability to correct its own mistakes.C2 · #1346
• Protecting this landscape requires reconciling two values that cannot be reduced to a single measure: accessibility and preservation of its character.C2 · #1347
• The ease of identifying the cause of a failure after the event does not prove that it could have been predicted just as easily.C2 · #1348
• Acknowledging the limits of one's knowledge lends credibility to a statement, provided it does not become a pretext for evading questions that can be answered.C2 · #1349
• I am not seeking the last word in the dispute, but a formulation of our disagreement that both sides can honestly recognise as their own.C2 · #1350
• An apparently impartial description reveals a distinct perspective when we examine whose actions it presents as requiring explanation.C2 · #1476
• The phrase 'as everyone knows' can shift the burden of the conversation from justifying a claim to having to explain one's unfamiliarity with it.C2 · #1477
• Excessive caution in drawing conclusions blurs the distinction between genuine uncertainty and reluctance to take a position.C2 · #1478
• Let's allow the reservation to be fully expressed before translating it into solutions; otherwise, we may solve a problem that no one has raised.C2 · #1479
• The story breaks off at the moment of choice, leaving the reader not so much a missing event as responsibility for judging the possible consequences.C2 · #1480
• A recurring detail changes its function as the story unfolds: at first it structures everyday life, and later it signals that something in it has fractured.C2 · #1481
• A joke based on ambiguity works precisely because the second reading emerges only after the first has briefly been accepted.C2 · #1482
• When describing a custom on behalf of an entire community, it is worth asking who recognises their own experience in that account and whose experience it leaves unspoken.C2 · #1483
• A comparison becomes misleading when a feature shared by two situations is treated as proof that all their relevant circumstances are alike.C2 · #1484
• A dispute over the fairness of an allocation may remain unresolved until we establish whether needs, contributions or equal shares take priority.C2 · #1485
• The word 'usually' needs a reference point: frequency in one group does not yet tell us what to expect in every other group.C2 · #1486
• If 'always' serves as an emotional intensifier, a response based solely on a single exception may miss the substance of the complaint.C2 · #1487
• The statement 'we do not rule out that possibility' keeps an option in play, but specifies neither how likely it is to be chosen nor a commitment to act.C2 · #1488
• Reasoning about what would have happened under a different decision should also account for the reactions of people who would have adjusted their own actions to it.C2 · #1489
• The most striking statement in a dispute need not represent the majority view; it may stand out precisely because it departs so far from it.C2 · #1490
• A new problem can seem insoluble when we try to force it into categories designed to describe entirely different relationships.C2 · #1491
• When explaining a model's output, let's also name what was excluded from its design, so that the tool's limits do not quietly become the limits of our account.C2 · #1492
• An event's significance for later generations does not determine how much importance those who witnessed it firsthand attached to it.C2 · #1493
• Criticism of how the decision was justified was read as opposition to its purpose, so the discussion changed its subject without explicit agreement.C2 · #1494
• Comparing two positions becomes meaningless if we credit one with all its later revisions but judge the other solely by its first version.C2 · #1495
• Agreement on the word 'security' can conceal disagreement about what we want protection from, who is protected and at what cost.C2 · #1496
• Replacing the word 'error' with 'deviation' changes the tone of the description, but only identifying the standard lets us assess whether its content has changed too.C2 · #1497
• When giving credit for a shared result, it is worth distinguishing the visibility of the final action from its dependence on work previously done by others.C2 · #1498
• Criticism of an institutional rule can concern the effects of applying it even when it does not question the goodwill of those who follow it.C2 · #1499
• Rather than reducing the dispute to two camps, let's identify where the positions overlap and where agreement in words ends when a course of action is chosen.C2 · #1500
• A 'could you' question can serve as a polite request, so an answer about the mere ability to perform the action can be pragmatically incomplete.C2 · #1626
• A statement about 'some' participants does not justify a conclusion about all of them, but does not itself settle whether the others meet the same condition either.C2 · #1627
• Replacing 'at least' with 'approximately' removes a guaranteed lower bound and introduces an estimate, even though both expressions can accompany the same number.C2 · #1628
• The phrase 'not unfounded' grants an argument some validity, but may deliberately leave the strength of its justification open.C2 · #1629
• Adding 'already' to a statement that work is finished can express surprise at its speed rather than merely indicate when it was completed.C2 · #1630
• 'Only three replies so far' and 'as many as three replies' can refer to the same data while revealing different expectations on the writer's part.C2 · #1631
• An explanation becomes merely apparent if we answer a question about a phenomenon's cause with its name without identifying any additional relationship.C2 · #1632
• The word 'naturally' can present a choice as obvious before the other person has a chance to reveal that it involves a serious doubt for them.C2 · #1633
• A headline can suggest causation merely by juxtaposing two events, even when the article cautiously speaks only of their co-occurrence.C2 · #1634
• The metaphor of a 'map' helps organise a problem, but can also conceal the fact that those involved in the dispute themselves change the terrain we are trying to describe.C2 · #1635
• A large percentage increase from a very low starting value can sound impressive without implying an equally large change in absolute numbers.C2 · #1636
• An aggregate result requires careful interpretation if the proportions of the groups used to calculate it have changed, even when each group's results remain similar.C2 · #1637
• Changing the assessment criterion after seeing the results makes it harder to distinguish a genuine revision of the goal from an attempt to fit the goal to the outcome achieved.C2 · #1638
• A single counterexample refutes an exceptionless claim, but does not by itself suffice to estimate how often the described pattern occurs.C2 · #1639
• A vision of future benefit can frame a debate so strongly that current costs fade into the background, even though they are the main problem for some participants.C2 · #1640
• The subjective nature of an aesthetic judgment does not rule out reasoned justification if we clearly distinguish our own response from the features of the work to which we relate it.C2 · #1641
• A character's statement may be essential to understanding the fictional world without being a declaration of the author's views.C2 · #1642
• A euphemism softens a description, but can also draw attention away from the person who bears the consequences of the action it names.C2 · #1643
• When translating a deliberately awkward statement, let's not automatically improve its fluency if the awkwardness itself reveals the speaker's position in the conversation.C2 · #1644
• The statement 'I regret what happened' expresses regret, but without further context does not establish whether the speaker accepts responsibility for the event.C2 · #1645
• If every possible observation can be reconciled with a claim by adding another exception, we need to ask what could lead us to reject it.C2 · #1646
• An invitation to discuss offers limited influence if participants can only answer prepared questions and cannot propose topics of their own.C2 · #1647
• Clarifying a concept will not resolve a dispute about values if the parties understand the same consequence perfectly well but attach different importance to it.C2 · #1648
• Clearly identifying who made a judgment prevents its repetition in successive accounts from gradually giving it the appearance of an impersonal fact.C2 · #1649
• A question about the conditions for changing a position can open a conversation in which a simple demand for a concession would sound like an expectation of abandoning one's own reasons.C2 · #1650
• The expression 'as far as I know' limits the scope of the knowledge claimed, but does not remove responsibility for accurately presenting what we actually know.C2 · #1776
• The statement 'not everyone refused' is not equivalent to saying that everyone agreed, and without further data it does not even say how many participants replied.C2 · #1777
• Adding 'solely' changes the scope of an explanation: identifying one reason does not necessarily exclude all others.C2 · #1778
• The sentence 'he was to do it' can describe an intention, expectation or obligation, so choosing a translation requires establishing whose perspective gives rise to that commitment.C2 · #1779
• Quotation marks around an apparently neutral term can signal the author's distance from the label rather than merely mark a direct quotation.C2 · #1780
• Calling a comment 'merely technical' can reduce its apparent importance, even though the feasibility of the entire plan depends on the detail identified.C2 · #1781
• The absence of alternatives from an account of a decision does not prove that they were not considered; it may result from how the story was shortened.C2 · #1782
• A claim that an outcome was inevitable requires stronger justification than a claim that it was the most likely under the circumstances.C2 · #1783
• A convincing account of one case may explain how it unfolded without being sufficient to assess the frequency of similar events.C2 · #1784
• When we change both the question and how answers are collected, it is difficult to attribute the difference in results solely to a change in participants' opinions.C2 · #1785
• The average task completion time may look favourable if we omit people who did not complete it at all.C2 · #1786
• Comparing one group's best achievements with another's average results mixes different reference points and can create an apparent advantage.C2 · #1787
• Assessing the consequences of inaction requires specifying what would probably have happened without action, not merely comparing the states before and after it.C2 · #1788
• A precise number can convey a greater impression of certainty than the method behind the estimate permits.C2 · #1789
• Adopting a shared success indicator does not remove a dispute if the parties judge differently the effects that indicator does not cover.C2 · #1790
• Speaking on behalf of a group requires distinguishing an agreed position from a view we have merely heard frequently within it.C2 · #1791
• Agreeing to hear an argument is not a promise to change one's position, but may create a commitment to give it due attention.C2 · #1792
• Irony based on shared experience can become unclear when taken out of a conversation, even though the literal wording remains unchanged.C2 · #1793
• An unresolved ending can leave several interpretations open without implying that each is equally well supported by the preceding text.C2 · #1794
• Repeating the same scene from another viewpoint can change the intention attributed to a character without changing any visible actions.C2 · #1795
• A neutral tone does not guarantee a neutral selection of facts if we consistently emphasise some circumstances and omit others.C2 · #1796
• The phrase 'it is only a matter of time' presents a future outcome as settled, although it does not itself identify the conditions on which that outcome depends.C2 · #1797
• Distinguishing a decision's justification from a description of its motives avoids assuming that what prompted us to act automatically justifies the action.C2 · #1798
• A response to an objection about consequences may miss the question if it defends only the actor's good intentions.C2 · #1799
• Recognising an argument as well-founded under particular conditions does not oblige us to accept it where those conditions no longer hold.C2 · #1800