Phrases and practice

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

• An exception allowed during preparation does not automatically carry over to implementation, even if it concerns the same participants.C2 · #3276
• If the description does not cover a borderline case, its status remains unresolved rather than automatically conforming to the most convenient interpretation.C2 · #3277
• A rule restricting how a task is carried out does not yet specify who is to carry it out; the two arrangements should not be treated as interchangeable.C2 · #3278
• Standardising the wording of two arrangements may conceal an important distinction if one grants freedom of choice while the other merely tolerates a departure from the rule.C2 · #3279
• A conditional offer of help cannot be read as an unconditional commitment merely because fulfilment of the condition seems likely.C2 · #3280
• A paraphrase that removes the words 'so far' can turn a limited observation into a claim about an enduring property of the phenomenon.C2 · #3281
• A question about the reasons for a change presupposes that a change occurred, so before answering it is worth checking whether the speakers share that assumption.C2 · #3282
• Saying that a solution is possible leaves its desirability an open question; an abridgement should not obscure that distinction.C2 · #3283
• Denying one of the reasons does not deny the decision itself, although a cursory summary can easily conflate the two.C2 · #3284
• By attributing an 'admission' rather than a 'statement' to the speaker, we suggest prior resistance that their words may not have contained at all.C2 · #3285
• Agreement on a general goal does not eliminate differences over the means, so it should not be presented as support for the entire project.C2 · #3286
• An appeal to a shared benefit requires clarification of who will bear the costs and whether those same people will experience the promised improvements.C2 · #3287
• Acknowledging that every option has limitations does not absolve us from comparing their importance under the specific circumstances.C2 · #3288
• An appeal to the urgency of the matter may justify a shorter discussion period, but does not in itself prove that the proposed solution is sound.C2 · #3289
• A concession on one issue does not mean withdrawing all reservations, provided that the parties have explicitly limited the scope of their agreement.C2 · #3290
• We are skating on thin ice when we infer the intentions of the whole team from a single ambiguous remark.C2 · #3291
• You cannot make something out of nothing: a carefully written summary will not reconstruct data that were never collected.C2 · #3292
• Losing the venue was the final nail in this plan's coffin, because the other locations had already proved unavailable.C2 · #3293
• We are caught in a vicious circle: we postpone the meeting because we lack a common position, yet without a meeting we do not try to develop one.C2 · #3294
• We gave them an inch and they want a mile: they now present our agreement to help once as a promise of ongoing support.C2 · #3295
• Preserving a pun may require changing the image if the literal equivalent does not allow the reader to hear the second meaning.C2 · #3296
• The translation reads fluently, but smooths over the deliberate roughness of the speech, which revealed tension between the speakers in the original.C2 · #3297
• Adding cultural context makes the allusion easier to understand, but may deprive the reader of a moment of uncertainty intended by the author.C2 · #3298
• Not every repeated word is a stylistic flaw; in this passage the repetition sets the rhythm and intensifies the growing impatience.C2 · #3299
• I would also assess a translation's fidelity by whether it preserves what is left unsaid, rather than solely checking for the presence of explicitly stated information.C2 · #3300
• Silence after a complex proposal may indicate a need for reflection, so I would not immediately interpret it as either approval or opposition.C2 · #3376
• If the other person asks for time to consult someone, insisting on an immediate response changes the conditions under which they were to decide.C2 · #3377
• Merely deferring a response until the next meeting does not prove that the question is being evaded, especially if a specific time has been agreed for returning to it.C2 · #3378
• An unclear statement can be clarified without implying bad faith; it is enough to identify two interpretations it leaves open.C2 · #3379
• Before treating a lack of response as an end to the conversation, let us check whether the message even reached the person whose reply we expect.C2 · #3380
• Giving one task priority has practical meaning only once we specify what may be postponed if deadlines conflict.C2 · #3381
• Comparing options by one criterion is useful, but should not pretend to settle issues that the criterion does not cover.C2 · #3382
• A solution that saves one person time may shift work onto another, so let us assess the whole process, not just its most visible stage.C2 · #3383
• Leaving a less urgent task undone does not in itself prove that it is unnecessary; it may simply result from the team's limited availability.C2 · #3384
• If the goal remains unchanged, altering the approach may demonstrate consistency in pursuing it rather than abandonment of the original intention.C2 · #3385
• I appreciate that the proposal takes our earlier comment into account, although I still do not see how it addresses the problem identified in the second example.C2 · #3386
• I would not want my agreement to continue talking to be read as acceptance of details we have not yet discussed.C2 · #3387
• My reservation concerns the sequence of actions, not the project's ambition itself, which I fully understand and share.C2 · #3388
• We can retain the central idea and change its form so that it does not require participants to have knowledge they have not yet been given.C2 · #3389
• I would rather call this version a starting point than a finished solution, because several of its assumptions still need to be checked together.C2 · #3390
• The compass metaphor aptly describes a shared direction, but should not suggest that we already know our way through every difficulty.C2 · #3391
• By calling questions a safety valve, we assign them a role in releasing tension, but may overlook their actual contribution to improving the idea.C2 · #3392
• When describing a change as a domino effect, we need to identify what links the successive stages rather than take their sequence for granted.C2 · #3393
• The image of a bridge between positions is helpful, provided that it does not obscure the distinction between agreement and complete uniformity of views.C2 · #3394
• The race metaphor can motivate, but in a collaborative project it can easily shift attention from the quality of the joint result to individual precedence.C2 · #3395
• I remember the atmosphere of that meeting much more clearly than the order of the remarks, so I would not present my recollection as an exact record of the conversation.C2 · #3396
• The fact that each of us remembers a different detail does not necessarily imply a contradiction; we may have paid attention to different parts of the event.C2 · #3397
• A later account of the event may have organised my recollection, but today I cannot separate its influence from what I remembered before.C2 · #3398
• What matters to me in this story is not only the sequence of events, but also how my understanding of their significance changed.C2 · #3399
• I do not want to undermine the credibility of your account; I am trying to indicate which elements I can confirm from my own perspective.C2 · #3400
• Asking who is responsible for the failure already assumes that a failure occurred; before assigning responsibility, let us establish whether we share that assessment.C2 · #3476
• Calling one option sensible and the other bold does not create a neutral comparison because each is given a different kind of approval.C2 · #3477
• Since the heading promises a ready-made solution, the reader may treat the subsequent questions as implementation details even though we still regard them as open issues.C2 · #3478
• By presenting the choice as action or inaction, we overlook the possibility of deliberately postponing a decision until missing information is clarified.C2 · #3479
• Keeping the existing arrangement also requires justification if the conditions that previously favoured it have changed.C2 · #3480
• The author cites this sentence as an example of a position he challenges, so quoting it as an expression of his own beliefs reverses the meaning of the passage.C2 · #3481
• An addition in square brackets may make a quotation easier to understand, but it should be clearly distinguished from the quoted person's words.C2 · #3482
• The speaker changes in this paragraph, so removing the brief introduction would make it harder to attribute the next claim to the correct person.C2 · #3483
• The footnote confirms the source of the quoted statement, but documenting it does not in itself establish the truth of the claim it contains.C2 · #3484
• If the editorial headline sounds more categorical than the interviewee's statement, it is worth indicating that it is the editors' interpretation rather than the speaker's exact declaration.C2 · #3485
• My 'wonderful' was an ironic reference to yet another change of plan; in a written reply without context, however, it may have sounded like sincere approval.C2 · #3486
• Let us not assume that everyone will recognise a joke based on an old event when some recipients joined the group only later.C2 · #3487
• The intention to ease tension does not erase the effect of a cutting remark if the other person understood it as questioning their competence.C2 · #3488
• In the invitation, I would leave out the irony about punctuality because it might obscure the actual starting time.C2 · #3489
• If we have to explain separately that the praise was a joke, let us consider whether that tone helps when speaking to people who do not yet know us.C2 · #3490
• I can suppose that an earlier invitation would have increased attendance, but I cannot say how many people would actually have come in that scenario.C2 · #3491
• An account of what could have happened is not yet an account of what was most likely under the conditions at the time.C2 · #3492
• This scenario assumes that the room would remain available all day; if we remove that assumption, we must reassess whether rehearsals could take place.C2 · #3493
• I am not claiming that changing the order of the presentations would certainly have prevented the dispute; I am only indicating which point might have unfolded differently.C2 · #3494
• When comparing possible decisions, let us not give one side knowledge gained only later while leaving the other with only the information available at the time of the choice.C2 · #3495
• Closing the meeting does not mean resolving the dispute; the minutes should make clear which positions remain incompatible.C2 · #3496
• We can agree on how to proceed even if we have not yet reached a shared assessment of how the project has gone so far.C2 · #3497
• The statement about broad support needs clarification when some people approved only the first stage rather than the entire plan presented.C2 · #3498
• Rather than smoothing away every difference in the final statement, I would propose a minimum shared position and separately described reservations from each side.C2 · #3499
• Leaving the question open will be more honest than pretending it is settled; to avoid postponing it indefinitely, let us specify who will return to it and when.C2 · #3500
• When we assess one proposal from a finished example and another from its description alone, the difference in persuasiveness may also arise from the form of presentation.C2 · #3576
• Comparing the cost of one meeting with that of a whole series requires making the scope explicit; otherwise an apparently lower amount may lead to a mistaken conclusion.C2 · #3577
• If we change the criterion only after seeing the results, we should disclose that change rather than present the assessment as though one standard had applied from the start.C2 · #3578
• The most detailed description need not concern the most important obstacle; it may simply come from someone who had more time to present it.C2 · #3579
• Calling a result good for beginners is not the same as calling it good regardless of participants' experience.C2 · #3580
• Moving the word 'only' may change what is being restricted: the person doing the task, the kind of task or when it is done.C2 · #3581
• The word 'again' presents the change of date as another event of that kind, so I would not use it without knowing the history of the arrangements.C2 · #3582
• Adding 'allegedly' signals distance from a claim; it is not a neutral substitute for saying that something has been reported.C2 · #3583
• When I say 'we did agree on a date, after all', I appeal to presumed shared knowledge; the other person may not, however, share my understanding of that conversation.C2 · #3584
• Saying that even experienced participants needed an explanation suggests an expectation about their independence rather than merely reporting that questions were asked.C2 · #3585
• The narrator describes this character with dislike, but we need not take his assessment as the impartial position of the work as a whole.C2 · #3586
• The fact that the character does not reveal the reason for his decision leaves room for interpretation, but does not justify attributing any motivation we choose to him.C2 · #3587
• The return of the same image at the end may change how the beginning is read, even if the sequence of events itself remains clear.C2 · #3588
• It is worth distinguishing what the character learned at that moment from what the reader already knows from an earlier chapter.C2 · #3589
• My interpretation does not require us to regard the narrator as a liar; it is enough that his knowledge of the other characters is limited.C2 · #3590
• Let us not cross the Rubicon through a careless statement; if this declaration closes the way back to our previous arrangements, it should be a deliberate decision.C2 · #3591
• A vote of confidence is not a blank cheque: we still have to explain decisions that affect other people's responsibilities.C2 · #3592
• The plan proves to be a colossus with feet of clay if its elaborate schedule rests on availability that no one has yet confirmed.C2 · #3593
• The threat is a paper tiger if the person making it has no means of carrying out the announced actions.C2 · #3594
• Focusing on a question's tone can act as a smokescreen when, instead of explaining unclear figures, we start judging the questioner's intentions.C2 · #3595
• Inviting everyone to comment does not in itself ensure influence over the decision if it is unclear how those comments will be considered.C2 · #3596
• Let us show the person who could not attend the meeting the alternatives that were considered as well as the option chosen by those present.C2 · #3597
• An equal number of minutes to speak does not remove every difference in the ability to present a position, especially when some people received the materials earlier.C2 · #3598
• If we ask people to choose between two options, let us state whether a third proposal is also allowed rather than later treating it as a departure from the topic.C2 · #3599
• Being able to withdraw one's proposal without public embarrassment may encourage an honest revision of one's position, although it does not remove the need to explain the reasons for the change.C2 · #3600