Sentences with phrase «reasonable answer as to»

It's automatic, it's mandatory, and there is no reasonable answer as to why someone would think this makes the game more enjoyable.

I continually trying to find someone that has some kind of a reasonable answer as to how they «know» that God exists.

Not exact matches

Her answer offers a few interesting tidbits, such as the fact that she's out the door at a totally reasonable hour to eat dinner with her kids (seriously, if Sandberg can manage to leave at 5:30, why can't you?)

I won't discuss any of the topics you have raised, but I will only encourage you to ask questions, challenge every single doctrine, and (as much as is possible) refuse to accept any single side of an issue without investigating other reasonable answers as well.

I had given though to not engaging with your reply Yasmin, but as I think you are coming from a sincere place, I will answer in what I hope will be a reasonable way.

Again, it doesn't matter what I think the answer is, but it seems that a reasonable interpretation might hold those sections as being either hopeful wishes, as opposed to exiting feelings, or in some cases descriptions by men not by God and therefore not entirely accurate.

You are now continuing to deflect and use subtle attacks and be condescending which doesn't help your credibility, as opposed to actually answering the question... Which you haven't offered any (reasonable or viable nor realistic law or solution) that would actually work yet.

If no, then any other credible hypothesis should be considered equally likely to the God hypothesis and perhaps it is reasonable to just acknowledge that the answer can not be known, as opposed to just picking an answer to believe in.

I think if you answered them honestly and humbly and to the best of your ability you'd realize that you'd still have just as much faith although your arguments would shift considerably towards the «reasonable» column.

For a while I would hem and haw an answer, stringing together some words that were an attempt at sounding intelligent and reasonable as to why I would have created and continue to run The Leaky Boob.

Most of the answer seems factually correct and gives a reasonable answer to the question, as it lists benefits.

It's a collaborative exercise that gets sold as one guy's vision; seems to me a reasonable answer to that question.

The concept — which refers to the correct answer to an addition problem as merely «reasonable» and allows students to be off by over 22 percent in their estimation — has been around for decades.

As per a post yesterday on Diane Ravitch's blog (also covering the same «Breaking News») this means that «that the NY Education Department must now answer to a Judge and explain why a rating which is irrational by any reasonable standard should be permitted to remain.

This shouldn't scare you as they accept any reasonable answer, unlike banks who need available reason to approve your loan request.

As with most of my questions, I usually have a reasonable idea of what the answer is likely to be.

As mentioned in the other answer, you can't invest all of your money in one slightly risky place, and to receive a significant return on your investment, you must take on a reasonable amount of risk, and must manage that risk by diversifying your portfolio of investments.

Financial institutions typically want to rid themselves of foreclosed properties promptly (for a reasonable price, of course — they have to answer to investors and auditors that they made every attempt to recoup as much of the original loan amount as possible).

The question as to what is causing the rapid changes in the geomagnetic dipole field, has not been answered, however, it seems reasonable that the forcing function is solar.

If I want to be sure that my finite element analysis (FEA) of a mechanical system, for instance, is giving a reasonable answer, I first check it is consistent with a simplified analytical approximation and then change the analysis parameters, such as cell number and shape, to see that my FEA solution doesn't change drastically.

Choice 1: How much money do we want to spend today on reducing carbon dioxide emission without having a reasonable idea of: a) how much climate will change under business as usual, b) what the impacts of those changes will be, c) the cost of those impacts, d) how much it will cost to significantly change the future, e) whether that cost will exceed the benefits of reducing climate change, f) whether we can trust the scientists charged with developing answers to these questions, who have abandoned the ethic of telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but, with all the doubts, caveats, ifs, ands and buts; and who instead seek lots of publicity by telling scary stories, making simplified dramatic statements and making little mention of their doubts, g) whether other countries will negate our efforts, h) the meaning of the word hubris, when we think we are wise enough to predict what society will need a half - century or more in the future?

For appropriate time scales (say, as short as an El Nino cycle or longer than 1000 years) it seems pretty clear that natural causes are dominant, so it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with, or give a «Can't answer» response to Bray's question, while agreeing with the IPCC view.

Many lawyers baulk at the idea that their contracts are essentially algorithms that need only have data inputted to output a clear answer, citing the presence of qualitative criteria (such as an obligation to use «reasonable endeavours» to do something) in many agreements.

There were of course exceptions but that explained why a person who honestly believed that he was in danger of an imminent deadly attack and responded violently in order to protect himself from that attack should be able to plead self - defence as an answer to a criminal charge of assault, or indeed murder, whether or not he had been mistaken in his belief and whether or not his mistake had been, objectively speaking, a reasonable one for him to have made.

[80] To demonstrate an impairment of the right to make full answer and defence as a result of a default or delay in disclosure, an appellant must establish a reasonable possibility that the delayed or failed disclosure affected the outcome at trial or the overall fairness of the trial process: Dixon at para. 34; Stinchcombe at p. 348; R. v. C. (M. H.), 1991 CanLII 94 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763, at p. 77To demonstrate an impairment of the right to make full answer and defence as a result of a default or delay in disclosure, an appellant must establish a reasonable possibility that the delayed or failed disclosure affected the outcome at trial or the overall fairness of the trial process: Dixon at para. 34; Stinchcombe at p. 348; R. v. C. (M. H.), 1991 CanLII 94 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763, at p. 77to make full answer and defence as a result of a default or delay in disclosure, an appellant must establish a reasonable possibility that the delayed or failed disclosure affected the outcome at trial or the overall fairness of the trial process: Dixon at para. 34; Stinchcombe at p. 348; R. v. C. (M. H.), 1991 CanLII 94 (S.C.C.), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 763, at p. 776.

is the the same as the answer to the question, «Would the average reasonable person believe that this goes against the spirits of the laws in place?»

If the cop has reasonable suspicion that a crime might be committed, which in any way would be aided by asking a question that isn't self - incriminating or demanding an ID, he may order you to present ID and to answer the question in a Terry stop such as this one under the «totality of the circumstances».

[16] As the sole issue in the case at bar is identification, I must answer two questions (a) whether Mr. Crane's identification of Mr. V in the photographic line - up amounts to a positive identification and (b) if it does not amount to a positive identification, whether, when considering all the evidence, there is evidence of an identification on which a reasonable jury, properly instructed, could convict.

The acte clair doctrine, first articulated in Cilfit (C - 283 / 81), states that in accordance with article 267 TFEU, a national court against whose judgment there is no higher appeal must refer a question to the ECJ when a question on the interpretation of EU law arises, unless the answer is «so obvious as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt».

Within thirty (30) days after service of the answer by the first answering defendant, and thereafter as each defendant answers the original complaint or an amended complaint, the attorneys for the parties, who must possess authority to act and knowledge of the case obtained after reasonable inquiry under the circumstances, shall meet in person for the purpose of complying with subdivision (b) of this rule.

This information can be used to answer questions such as «How long does a family need to be in a program before it is reasonable to expect a change in one of the indicators?»

For example, buyer's representatives should know the answers to questions such as these: Is it reasonable for buyers to expect their representative to independently verify all information provided by the seller's agent?