Sentences with phrase «wrong answers as»

What if instead of dismissing wrong answers as a sign of failure, maths teachers tried to understand how their pupils came to that answer and then guided them in the right direction?

Honoring all student responses without framing wrong answers as «bad» or «stupid» went a long way in meeting students» need for safety and acceptance.

Children should be reminded that there are no wrong answers as long as their answer can be justified.

These treatments may be pursued together or individually, and Waitzfelder says there's no right or wrong answer as to which is «best.»

Among those who hazard a guess, they are as likely to give the wrong answer as the correct one.

Especially with fractions, when she rushes, she arrives at the wrong answer as she may divide instead of multiplying when calculating for the right common denominator.

Not exact matches

«I pray every day that God will put all the right things, all the right people and the right projects in my life and to take all the wrong things and the wrong people out, and I really pray and believe that he does so I have to swallow my pride and take those things as answers,» she added.

Meanwhile, as noble as the desire for universal health care is, Obamacare was the wrong answer to the wrong question.

Worse, after Search Engine Land reported on the obviously incorrect result for the «king of the united states» query, Google now lists content from our report as a direct answer — keeping the wrong answer at the top of its search results.

There is no right or wrong answer here, as either way offers a benefit.

A more recent answer — an agreement by the North to freeze its nuclear and missile programs in place in exchange for United States concessions, such as the suspension of joint American - South Korean military exercises — is also wrong.

As with many aspects of trading, there is no right or wrong answer to this question.

As you should be aware sampling does not require compulsion of any kind to be effective, again the mindset that you get the right answer by mandatory collection alone is wrong per se.

Given that he rejected the Holy Spirit... it's obvious that he was wrong, and they'll as Mohammed said, have to answer for all their sins... to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob... in that they reject Jesus dying on the cross for their sins.

Another fact is that, as children, we believed we had the correct answers and our parents were wrong.

«He was just the wrong man for the wrong time, which is nothing to do with him as a person,» said Christopher M. Bellitto, author of the book «101 Questions and Answers on Popes and the Papacy.»

I don't have any answers, but from all the reading I've done, I realize that Christian culture contributes to this greatly, as we are told that standing up for ourselves isn't kind, and that confrontation and dissent is wrong if may hurt others.

They do not retreat to some of the typical answers such as «The Bible is wrong» or «God was accommodating Himself to a fallen world.»

If someone can not further explain an answer without being accused of attempting to change their «wrong» answer (in your view) without admitting mistake then I guess you hold people to an impossibly high standard and as you say «one that you can not keep yourself.»

We'll never know but one thing is for sure, the bible presents Elijah as a prophet of the true God and he was allowed to test God, but now we are told testing God is wrong, but I believe that's only because except for Elijah, he's never answered another request.

But that answer is wrong or misleading — and in such a way as to skew projections for the future.

Jeremy Myers, i think you are wrong and David is right, so many out there are preaching you can live any way you want and be right that Grace covers any sin, they really believe that, that is not what the bible says, God was very concerned about sin so much he sent Jesus his son to die on a cross for us, if we accept Jesus as our savor then we are to obey his commandments, not break them, we are to live a righteous and holy life as possible, the bible plainly list a whole list of things if we live in will not to to heaven unless we repent, if we die while in these sins, we will not go to heaven, what is the difference, between someone who said a prayer and someone who did not, and they are living the same way, none, i think, if we are truly saved it should be hard to do these things let alone live and do them everyday, i would be afraid to tell people that it does not matte grace covers their sins, i really think it is the slip ups that we are convicted of by the Holy Spirit and we ask for forgivness, how can anyones heart be right with God and they have sex all the time out of marriage, lie, break every commandment of God, i don't think this is meaning grace covers those sins, until they repent and ask for forgiveness, a lot of people will end up in hell because preachers teach Grace the wrong way,, and those preachers will answer to God for leading these people the wrong way, not saying you are one of them, but be careful, everything we teach or preach must line up with the word of God, God hates sin,

The only slightly challenging question was about the First Great Awakening (Jonathan Edwards - if I had to write the name from memory, I would have likely answered wrong as I always want to say George Edwards... and Jonathan Whitefield).

You raised some genetic doubts about that process and I can't answer that (so far) as I don't have the knowledge, so I don't know if they are right or wrong.

This is a complex and not easily definable issue and anyone with «easy» answers in my view is not admitting the fallen and terrible condition of mankind in general and that as much as we would attempt to make categorical statements as to «all war is wrong» or «war is the right soultion» we are making statements that just cant stand up to either biblical exegesis or the reality of the world we live in.

They come across as people who have all the answers and everybody else who does not agree with them is wrong, and is probably condemned to hell.

As Bonhoeffer has reminded us, it is wrong to presume that only Christianity has the answers to human problems.

(As a side note: If your answer to these questions is «Not one bit» there is something seriously wrong with you.)

Paul clearly states that we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities in high places; He is suppose to be setting a principal and he is in fact destroying the thing that God stand for, serving the flesh and the creation more than the creator who is blessed forever; Man will always have a battle between flesh and spirit; he is more flesh than spirit ever in his dress muscles and tight shirts; which has no place in the spirit;» dealing with matters of the holy ghost «he can speck it but he can «t live it; which is the trouble with a lot of modern day Christians; do as i say not as i do... old fashion parents had the same concept, its not just Eddie he got caught, he was just falling weak to the flesh and his own desires; only thing is, he is responsible for the souls of those under his leadership; He must answer and atone to God for those actions, you think for a moment we are being hard on him; God has a way of letting us know when we are wrong that lets us know we need to change.

Now this isn't a super strong argument, because as soon as you tell another Christian they are wrong about something because you have the mind of Christ, they will answer right back that you are wrong because they have the mind of Christ.

I may be totally wrong and have to answer for my «sin» of being gay... but this sin of the church, prejudice disguised as faith, is much more destructive.

As so often happened then, something went wrong and Rachel died birthing the answer to her prayer.

But it seems that we have often gone one step further: we justify our own confusion by being suspicious of any certainty, and we interpret the lack of easy answers to mean that any answer is as good as another, that we can not be sure about right and wrong.

Seriously, I remember when I was in college, there would be these people, called professors, that would even say my answer is wrong and give me points off my test... the nerve of them how dare they not be open to my ideas and beliefs as to how physics work, or what Poe point was, or what actually happen during Roman occupation....

His answer to that question was that, while there is general agreement as to what is wrong with the world, the real problem is that we can not agree on what would be right.

There is nothing wrong with having an answer as long as we are willing to look at other possibilities.

I often find «Christian Dramas» cheesey but not this one for some reason — I've watched it 4 or 5 times and I cry every time — as far as how you interpret what Jesus should or should not being doing during this presentation that is up to the artist who created the work — there is no right or wrong answer here.

The confusion for me, again even as a little kid (ages 9 - 11 particularly, at a time when I was quite the believer even), was that all the other religions pretty much said the same thing... prayers answered, miracle cures, and with the same back up, that «unanswered» prayers were either an answer, «no» or «not yet»... OR... the person asking didn't have the right heart, or didn't ask for the right thing, or asked the wrong way, etc..

Many people have a wrong view of history, God, and human nature so if you want real answers as to why death, suffering, and evil exist read this http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/pdf/radio/death-and-suffering.pdf

A wrong answer may throw out all that we have said up to now, rendering it as merely preparatory and therefore forgettable.

Although I was told there «are no wrong answers,» the group as a whole seemed to agree on the descriptions.

To answer questions and build up an assortment takes both interest in the allergic customer as well as knowledge about allergies and what could happen if it go wrong.

I did that this morning, and the Mail and Caughtoffside both quoted the Mirror as the source so I thought I had the answer, but I was wrong!

I hope I am wrong and we take United to school, of course, but if we don't then the Frenchman will have some big questions to answer as to why he persists in a formula proven to be flawed.

Facts are irrelevant to a degree — what you see on the pitch is reality - and the true facts are we have been gradually declining year on year and my article is a question that is hypothetical as there isn't a right answer or wrong answer..

Then, after again ticking off all that could go wrong, he brightened and came as close, perhaps, as he ever will to answering the one big question: Why?

This is an incredibly difficult question to answer for a variety of reasons, most importantly because over the years our once vaunted «beautiful» style of play has become a shadow of it's former self, only to be replaced by a less than stellar «plug and play» mentality where players play out of position and adjustments / substitutions are rarely forthcoming before the 75th minute... if you look at our current players, very few would make sense in the traditional Wengerian system... at present, we don't have the personnel to move the ball quickly from deep - lying position, efficient one touch midfielders that can make the necessary through balls or the disciplined and pacey forwards to stretch defences into wide positions, without the aid of the backs coming up into the final 3rd, so that we can attack the defensive lanes in the same clinical fashion we did years ago... on this current squad, we have only 1 central defender on staf, Mustafi, who seems to have any prowess in the offensive zone or who can even pass two zones through so that we can advance play quickly out of our own end (I have seen some inklings that suggest Holding might have some offensive qualities but too early to tell)... unfortunately Mustafi has a tendency to get himself in trouble when he gets overly aggressive on the ball... from our backs out wide, we've seen pace from the likes of Bellerin and Gibbs and the spirited albeit offensively stunted play of Monreal, but none of these players possess the skill - set required in the offensive zone for the new Wenger scheme which requires deft touches, timely runs to the baseline and consistent crossing, especially when Giroud was playing and his ratio of scored goals per clear chances was relatively low (better last year though)... obviously I like Bellerin's future prospects, as you can't teach pace, but I do worry that he regressed last season, which was obvious to Wenger because there was no way he would have used Ox as the right side wing - back so often knowing that Barcelona could come calling in the off - season, if he thought otherwise... as for our midfielders, not a single one, minus the more confident Xhaka I watched played for the Swiss national team a couple years ago, who truly makes sense under the traditional Wenger model... Ramsey holds onto the ball too long, gives the ball away cheaply far too often and abandons his defensive responsibilities on a regular basis (doesn't score enough recently to justify): that being said, I've always thought he does possess a little something special, unfortunately he thinks so too... Xhaka is a little too slow to ever boss the midfield and he tends to telegraph his one true strength, his long ball play: although I must admit he did get a bit better during some points in the latter part of last season... it always made me wonder why whenever he played with Coq Wenger always seemed to play Francis in a more advanced role on the pitch... as for Coq, he is way too reckless at the wrong times and has exhibited little offensive prowess yet finds himself in and around the box far too often... let's face it Wenger was ready to throw him in the trash heap when injuries forced him to use Francis and then he had the nerve to act like this was all part of a bigger Wenger constructed plan... he like Ramsey, Xhaka and Elneny don't offer the skills necessary to satisfy the quick transitory nature of our old offensive scheme or the stout defensive mindset needed to protect the defensive zone so that our offensive players can remain aggressive in the final third... on the front end, we have Ozil, a player of immense skill but stunted by his physical demeanor that tends to offend, the fact that he's been played out of position far too many times since arriving and that the players in front of him, minus Sanchez, make little to no sense considering what he has to offer (especially Giroud); just think about the quick counter-attack offence in Real or the space and protection he receives in the German National team's midfield, where teams couldn't afford to focus too heavily on one individual... this player was a passing «specialist» long before he arrived in North London, so only an arrogant or ignorant individual would try to reinvent the wheel and / or not surround such a talent with the necessary components... in regards to Ox, Walcott and Welbeck, although they all possess serious talents I see them in large part as headless chickens who are on the injury table too much, lack the necessary first - touch and / or lack the finishing flair to warrant their inclusion in a regular starting eleven; I would say that, of the 3, Ox showed the most upside once we went to a back 3, but even he became a bit too consumed by his pending contract talks before the season ended and that concerned me a bit... if I had to choose one of those 3 players to stay on it would be Ox due to his potential as a plausible alternative to Bellerin in that wing - back position should we continue to use that formation... in Sanchez, we get one of the most committed skill players we've seen on this squad for some years but that could all change soon, if it hasn't already of course... strangely enough, even he doesn't make sense given the constructs of the original Wenger offensive model because he holds onto the ball too long and he will give the ball up a little too often in the offensive zone... a fact that is largely forgotten due to his infectious energy and the fact that the numbers he has achieved seem to justify the means... finally, and in many ways most crucially, Giroud, there is nothing about this team or the offensive system that Wenger has traditionally employed that would even suggest such a player would make sense as a starter... too slow, too inefficient and way too easily dispossessed... once again, I think he has some special skills and, at times, has showed some world - class qualities but he's lack of mobility is an albatross around the necks of our offence... so when you ask who would be our best starting 11, I don't have a clue because of the 5 or 6 players that truly deserve a place in this side, 1 just arrived, 3 aren't under contract beyond 2018 and the other was just sold to Juve... man, this is theraputic because following this team is like an addiction to heroin without the benefits

Our CF spot has been an issue... Welbeck wasn't the answer as time has shown so Gazidis bought the wrong man.

We Arsenal fans are quick enough to jump on Arsene Wenger or the Arsenal board and owners, as well as any individual player, when something goes wrong and we think they are to blame or at the very least have some questions to answer, so in all fairness it should work the other way around as well.

Picture this, we don't come out of the gate firing on all cylinders, Wenger speaks of how there wasn't enough time for the first - teamers to build chemistry, several key players aren't even playing because of Wenger's utterly ridiculous policy regarding players who played in the Confed Cup or the under21s and the boo - birds have returned in full flight... if these things were to happen, which is quite possible considering the Groundhog Day mentality of this club, how long do you think it will take for Wenger to recant his earlier statements regarding Europa... I would suggest that it's these sorts of comments from Wenger which are often his undoing... why would any manager worth his weight in salt make such a definitive statement before the season has even started... why would any manager who fashions himself an educated man make such pronouncements before even knowing what his starting 11 will be come Friday, let alone on September 1st... why would any manager who has a tenuous relationship with a great many supporters offer up such a potentially contentious talking point considering how many times his own words have come back to bite him in the ass... I think he does this because he doesn't care what you or I think, in fact he's more than slightly infuriated by the very idea of having to answer to the likes of you and me... that might have been acceptable during his formative years in charge, when the fans were rewarded with an scintillating brand of football and success felt like a forgone conclusion, but this new Wenger led team barely resembles that team of ore... whereas in times past we relished a few words from our seemingly cerebral manager, in recent times those words have been replaced by a myriad of excuses, a plethora of infuriating stories about who he could have signed but didn't and what can only be construed as outright fabrications... it's kind of funny that when we want some answers, like during the whole contract debacle of last season, we can't get an intelligent word out of him, but when we just what him to show his managerial acumen through his actions, we can't seem to get him to shut - up... I beg you to prove me wrong Arsene