I came across the following sentence on an English website for ESL students.     Since/Because she stopped eating chocolate last week, she's eating more fruit!   They asked to choose between the two words Since and Because. It turned out that the right word was Because, but I'm not sure of that because, for me, the meaning of sentence is not clear enough. I expressed my doub in a comment, then they replied:  "She's stopped eating chocolate because it contains too much sugar, and has started to eat more fruit because it's just as sweet, tasty, and healthier. It's possible!"  Yes, it's possible, but one might stop eating chocolate for more than one reason. I mean, there is not any logical reason to link  "stop eating chocolate" with "eating more fruit". Since might be just as correct and consistent.  Moreover, Since may refer to time and make the sentence clearer and more logical to me. I hope I have been clear.
123201
Is there any difference between since and because? Example:  Bob gave him a candy because he was nice. Bob gave him a candy since he was nice.  Note: If someone has a better example, please post it in the comments
39069
I believe the sentence in the title is grammatically correct.   Recently I've seen too many people writing it this way:     I'm not sure what is the right way.   Is it grammatically correct as well? Maybe in a different sense? Or simply misuse by non-native speakers?
2074
In the following example, is it appropriate to use a or an as the indefinite article, and why?     He ate __ green apple.   I know that in the case of just "apple", it would be "an apple," but I've heard conflicting answers for "green apple," where the noun is separated from the article by an adjective.  Also, which is more appropriate in this case:     He ate  __ enormous Pop-Tart.
52276
What is the difference between the following two sentences?     Each apple is red.      Every apple is red.
23243
I am not a native speaker. On a previous question of mine, I thanked for an answer by saying:     So the phrase is not an idiom, since it is applied in its literal sense.   I consciously chose since over because, because — well, I like that usage of since, even though I know that some (native speakers) don't like it. Nonetheless, that choice got me thinking for a while, and it occurred to me that I even could have used more alternatives, namely as or for, without changing the meaning.   So, on a general note, here are the alternatives:        Statement A (is true), because statement B (is true).   Statement A (is true), since statement B (is true).   Statement A (is true), as statement B (is true).   Statement A (is true), for statement B (is true).      Are these completely interchangeable? Or interchangeable in certain situations? Or can you point out any (not-so-)subtle differences between any of them? Are there even more synonyms?
11456
I'm having some trouble with the following sentence:     Since he had arrived, he had seen the rule broken more than once.   For some context, the text itself is a short story and I'm writing it in past tense. Does this mean that the presence of a past simple verb is "implicit", in a way, to the text itself? Does using the word "since" change anything (I know that it is usually supposed to be followed by a past simple verb, but I'm not sure of any exceptions to this)?
120166
One asks “how does x taste,” implying that they’d like an adverb describing the way it tastes. But one answers with an adjective, “it tastes good” instead of “it tastes well,” which would imply that x is tasting something else. What’s the reason for this discrepancy?
33633
I wonder what the reason is to say These cakes sell well instead of These cakes are being sold well.   I understand that it’s shorter but it doesn’t work with any verb, does it? For example, The house is being built can’t be substituted by The house is building.  So, what justifies and makes it acceptable to compose such a sentence which we can see in the example with the verb sell? Does it have something to do with the verb used or something else? If so, are there many verbs which can be used that way?
95934
Assume the following situation: Person A meets person B in the winter of 2009. Then he/she meets the same person in 2010 and 2011.  which sentence is true?  Since winter 2009 person A has met person B 3 times.  or  Since winter 2009 person A has met person B 2 times.  So, the main question is, if since includes the meeting in winter 2009 or not?
101044
I found the following sentence in an American novel (this one:  you can read the whole paragraph). A woman broke her wrist and just had her cast removed. She thinks she can start playing piano again, but her wrist still hurts too much. I'm not sure I understand the meaning of the final sentence:  But a body can only heal so much, so fast.  Can someone help me, please?
2676
The study was carried out up to visit 11 under the name of X1,   whereas all later visits were carried out under a different name,   X2.   In the above sentence, does V11 belong to X1 or X2? I want the sentence to mean that V11 was included in X1, how should the sentence be then?
26552
Example: You do need to drink more water.   or   You need to drink more water.   What is the difference?
42315
This book reads very well.  The usage of the verb read is unusual. Because it doesn't say here that the book reads something, but someone reads the book. Can you give me a hint what is this grammar point called? Can I say these?  This story tells very well. This wine drinks smoothly. This show watches well.
80490
I have been looking around to find an answer to my question, but I was unable to find one that addressed my specific problem.  I want to create the following sentence, but I'm not sure whether it's correct.     "Not only the world has changed during this time but also we have in particular."   I apologize in advance if I have overlooked an easy solution to this.
40348
This question is also open on EL&amp;U:   Considering the amount of controversy it aroused, I believe it's past "Learners'" level.    An edit was suggested to my sentence.     There was were an orange, some grapes, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate.   In my native language plurality of the verb always follows plurality of the first element on the list. There were an orange,... sounds awkward to me, no matter what follows up. My simple solution was reordering:     There were some grapes, an orange, two apples and a small pile of cherries on the plate.   But that's not the first time I faced this situation and I'd like to know what the rules of grammar say about that — was my editor overzealous or am I trying to copy rules of my language that don't apply in English?
86815
Sentence 1： I was told my work was unsatisfactory, at which point I submitted my resignation.  Sentence 2：Sometimes you may feel too frail to cope with things, in which case do them as soon as it is convenient.  I am confused with "which" in the above two sentences. Does it serve relative determiner, rather than relative pronoun? Does "which point" in the first sentence stand for "I was told my work was unsatisfactory"?Does "which case" in the second sentence stand for "sometimes you may feel too frail to cope with things"?  Thank you in advance!
50178
I came across this question:  Let p, q, and r be the propositions  p : Grizzly bears have been seen in the area. q : Hiking is safe on the trail. r : Berries are ripe along the trail. Write these propositions using p, q, and r and logical connectives (including negations).     If berries are ripe along the trail, hiking is safe if and   only if grizzly bears have not been seen in the area.   I see an If r,q iff ~p where If r,q is the part "If berries are ripe along the trail, hiking is safe" and ~p is "grizzly bears have not been seen in the area"  and I came up with (r -&gt; q) &lt;-&gt; ~p  But the answer given is: r -&gt; (q &lt;-&gt; ~p)  Can someone please explain the difference in precedence?