Please help, do you find the first phrases are parallel with the second paraphrase? Is that even contradictory
913398
"could also bolstered" makes no sense, you would have to say "could also bolster", but that changes the reference of the sentence. In your original formulation, the meaning is that the OPEC membership supports (bolsters) the world-stage standing.  Your "could also" suggestion reverses this such that the world-stage standing supports (bolsters) OPEC membership.  Of course, whether either of these are true is another issue altogether.  Although there is a connection between the energy issue, OPEC membership and how the world sees the country, it's tough to figure out what you're trying to say or how you're trying to relate the three.  Try: "Because non-renewable-source energy consumption is an issue tightly integrated with people's lives, OPEC membership and, more generally, the country's standing on the world stage are important concerns to the population at large."
623884
both expressions are thought out before they are carried out
715574
The first sentence and the last one too are both correctly punctuated, mate, they both make the same sense and are fully acceptable.\n\nIf u have a doubt, u can use this sentence either,"While mother WAS DRIVING, father studied the road map." or this one too,"Father studied the road map while mother was driving."\n\nSentence B and C are definitely wrongly punctuated.\n\nHope it helps mate
460019
Some like to points to passages like this as evidence that Scripture contradicts itself.  \n\nBut that is hardly the explanation for a case like this\nNotice that the book of Proverbs intentionally puts these two proverbs side by side!  The suggestion that the collector was so incompetent as note to notice that the two successive verses said exactly the OPPOSITE is a bit much.\n\nIn fact, those who have studied the making and collecting of proverbs around the world (a fascinating area of study called "paremiology") have found that it is COMMON in this sort of literary collection to deliberately put two complementary, even seemingly contradictory sayings together.   For that matter, it would not be difficult to find seemingly contradictory parables WE have used.  For example: “Look before you leap” versus “He who hesitates is lost” and “Birds of a feather flock together,” versus “Opposites attract”\n\nThe point is that proverbs are "generalized" widsom -- obsevations about how life works -- but one can't mechanically apply them.  It takes real insight/wisdom to know which 'rule-of-thumb' applies in a given situation.  When the collector of Proverbs put THESE two together he clearly wanted to underline this point (which is made in other ways in the opening chapters of the book), and to challenge us to 'chew it over.'
863393
go back to your introductory paragraph. You should be rephrasing the introduction to tie it all together.
61830
First, let me suggest a great book called "Eats, Shoots, Leaves" by Lynn Truss. I think you would appreciate it.\n\nSecond, let me embarrass myself by tackling your sentence.\n\n(H)ey, what(')s or what is up with my gramm(a)r?\n\nThose were the obvious errors. Of course, I reserve the right to find more, but that is it for now.
975550
Sweetheart, different sources use different abreviations. Can you type out specifically what they are? Then I might be able to help you.
441824
Modus Ponens:\nIf is true P, then Q is true.\nP is true.\nTherefore, Q is true. \nExample:\nIf you buy today, I will give you a 10% discount. You have agreed to buy today, so I will reduce the price by 10%.\n\nModus Tollens:\nIf P, then Q.\nQ is false.\nTherefore, P is false.\nExample:\nIf there is smoke, there is fire. There is not fire, so there is no smoke.
260553
because sometimes those words are not exact quotes.  Sometimes the words in [] are only implied.  for example if you saw "i loved [the cast].  they were great to work with"...  the actual quote may have been "i loved them.  they were great to work with"
691650
No, they are not the same. The first one is grammatically incorrect & should not be used. The second is grammatically correct & is used in the context of the comparison e.g "Isn't there the same problem in the English government as in the American government, in regards to international trade?"
53295
Are these words phrased in the form of an answer.
380914
I'm pretty sure it's a joke, meant to show you how a paragraph can be horribly misinterpreted if read incorrectly. Hopefully, the first paragraph is the right one. The second one is bizarre.
643830
1st one: That is one of the most unintelligent quotes I have ever heard. Who ever would do that is purely ill.\n\n2nd one: I could live with that we will fight but do not expect me to go down easy.
879009
Neither of these statments is even close to being true.  If someone spoke the line you said and another changed it, the term for what the second person did would be "misquoting".  The term for what the first did would most likely be "libel".
627474
You diagram sentences within the paragraph, not the entire paragraph.  You should have studied that (and spelling!) already.
252483
perhaps if you wrote your question (additional details) in better english it would be easier to understand what you say.  You're intro to the question is very well written...but unfortunately I can't figure out what you mean by the second sentence.  SORRY
865768
Citations are references to published works. A paraphrase is a statement or remark explained in other words. So, your question makes no sense.