Which one is right, “I am agree”, “I agree” or “I do agree”?
it is case to case n phrase to phrase5 Common Errors In EnglishCommon English Error #1 – AgreeDon’t Say: “I’m Agree With You.”Say: “I Agree With You.”We can say “I agree with you” or “I’m in agreement with you” (more formal).We can also say “agree to” + verb, for the action resulting from the agreement:Michael agreed to help me with my homework after class.My neighbor and I agreed not to play loud music after 10 PM.Common English Error #2 – Very MuchDon’t Say: “I Like Very Much This Book.”Say: “I Like This Book Very Much.” (Formal)Or: “I Like This Book A Lot.”Or: “I Really Like This Book.”“Very much” is an adverb that describes “like.” In English, we usually put adverbs either before the verb or at the end of the sentence. Look at these examples:The new product reached easily 1 million sales.The new product reached 1 million sales easily.The new product easily reached 1 million sales.Common English Error #3 – History Or StoryDon’t Say: “He Told Me A Funny History About His Dog.”Say: “He Told Me A Funny Story About His Dog.”History refers to everything that has happened in the past, especially in the political, economical, and social areas. History is always based in truth and facts.A story may be truth or fiction; it is the description of an event or series of events that is usually told to teach or entertain.Common English Error #4 – ThinkingDon’t Say: “I’m Thinking To Buy A Car.”Say: “I’m Thinking Of Buying A Car.”Or: “I’m Thinking About Buying A Car.”Think is often followed by of or about, but never to. Also, the correct form of the verb is the -ing form.Common English Error #5 – TheDon’t Say: “In The Russia…”Say: “In Russia…”Never use “the” with names of countries, states, or cities.Exceptions: the United States, the Philippines, the Soviet Union, the Roman EmpireYou can use “the” with regions:I’m from the northeast.We’re going to the south of Argentina.source 5 Common Errors in English
Do you agree with this message?
I agree with this partly. We should be allowed, rather forced, to take courses in fields that will benefit us such as economics and business.However, math and science subjects are still important.Most students in high school don’t yet truly know what they want to do with their life, so the smorgasbord is incredibly important. Painters don’t need advanced calculus, but mathematicians do. The same could be said for the opposite. Mathematicians don’t need advanced arts classes, but painters do. But the painter still doesn’t know if he wants to be a mathematician when he graduates. So he takes the advanced math classes, and he says “now I know why I want to be a painter”.It’s also to solidify the life goals and college majors of some. They take classes they don’t want to take and then never have to take them again, now knowing that they can solidly say they never want to take another class like that again.I have a unique situation, in which I’m able to pursue what I want to do at a specialized high school for art. But I, and all of my peers, have to take science and math, because it’s important to know why you want to pursue a career, and not just that you want to have that career.
Do you agree with this quote, why or why not?
no---you can talk until you are blue in the face about a subject, but until you do it or you go out there and prove it, it doesnt mean a hill of beans.
Do you agree with any of Karl Marx's ideas?
There is one in particular that I agree with.Marx hypothesized that with the reduction in wages to cut costs and increase profitability, workers have less money to spend. Those workers then cannot buy what they produce, and the economy slows.The money, instead of going into the pockets of the poor and middle classes, goes into the hands of the rich. Now you might be wondering “what’s the difference?” Poor people and the middle class spend more than rich people do.If you give $1 million to a bunch of poor and imddle class people, because they have things that they want, they will spend it. It’ll be spent on things like homes, food, healthcare, cars, etc. But if you gave that $11 million to rich people, they’d put it in a safe instead of spending it.Now if the money keeps going into the hands of the rich who don’t spend it, then the economy collapses. The economy revolves around the idea that goods and services can be traded for money. What happens when most of the population has no money? They cannot act as consumers, and thus people can’t buy things anymore. Then the economy crashes.
Do you agree or disagree with what I think?
I think yahoo answers is NOT a reliable site for factual answers I think this way because I highly doubt there are trained, educated or qualified doctors, lawyers, polticians, psyhcologist, and teachers etc with univeristy degrees who actually use yahoo answers. so i think yahoo answers is not reliable for factual informantion or for high quality advice.
Do you agree with Thomas Hobbes?
Hobbes was right to shrink the ethical concern of government down to the thesis that it was to aid in self preservation. The Lockean refinement of his state of nature theory, however, was a needed improvement. In other words start from Hobbes but don't end there.
Do you agree with the democracy system?
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class.*That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer*The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on this plan : All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade !After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.The second test average was a D!No one was happy.When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that communism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.*These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment :*1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation !*Can you think of a reason for not sharing this?*\U0001f914
Do you agree with this statement? History...?
Yes, Napoleon had to invade Russia. The Russians broke the treaty they had with France (Treaty of Tilsit) and reopened trade with the British. This would negate the continental system since British goods would flow through Russia into the rest of continental Europe, this is the main reason Napoleon invaded Russia. Another major problem was that the Russians were mobilizing an army on the border of the Duchy of Warsaw. It was obvious that Russia was going to invade the duchy and the Russians were also sending pamphlets into Germany calling for the people to rise up against the French and join the Russians. So if Napoleon did not take action against this threat then the Russians would of invaded the Duchy of Warsaw and in all probability the Prussians and Austrians would of joined them. Napoleon was an excellent leader. He reformed France and made it the strongest country in Europe and possibly the world. He is considered the father of Italian unification and turned hundred of small independent German states into a manageable confederation. His knowledge of military affairs ranks him in the top with Alexander and Caesar. If you combine all of these traits and accomplishments then how could you have anything but a great leader.
Do you agree that animals & trees have souls?
John Grays "Stray Dogs" may be something you might want to look into reading. In animist cultures, "humans" and mere animals are equal in that they possess souls and can readily perceive the world in individual ways. Folks like Descartes refuted that animals have souls and are mere meat bags( as you probably know). One example is how certain oak trees send out chemical signals to worn other nearby oaks of imminent attacks of ravenous insects. Ravens readily use deception when hiding a plot of food for winter; they will apparently start to dig a desired spot to store food to fool onlookers but will change the spot when they feel nothing threatening like a covetous robin, will be watching. In turn language and communication "could" be seen as evidence of a self, but only if it is from a desire and not just programing from your environment. A cactus pricks whomever regardless if they are a threat or not. In this case its adaptation of protection in indiscriminate.