Next To You
Verse 1:
You’re standing next to me
Looking at the world
I don’t know what I’d do
Without you by my side
Chorus:
You’re my everything
And I don’t want to let you go
You’re my heartbeat
And I don’t want to be alone
Verse 2:
You’re my shelter from the storm
You’re my strength when I’m weak
You’re my hope when I’m lost
And I don’t want to be without you
Bridge:
I need you here with me now
To hold me when I’m feeling low
To tell me that it’s gonna be alright
And that we’ll make it through the night
Chorus:
You’re my everything
And I don’t want to let you go
You’re my heartbeat
And I don’t want to be alone
You’re everything to me
And I don’t want to let you slip away
Verse 3:
I can feel your love for me
It’s like a river deep and wide
And I know that I can rely on you forevermore
You’re my everything, my everything, my everything, yeah…..
Chorus: (x2)…..The average (arithmetic mean) of the three integers a, b, and c is (a + b + c) / 3. What is the average (arithmetic mean) of the integers -a, -b, and -c?
options:
A)-a - b - c.
B)a + b + c.
C)- (a + b + c).
D)a - b - c.
E)- (a-b-c).
given (a+b+c)/3 = avg. of a,b,c ---> so (a+b+c) = 3avg. of a,b,c. (1)
Now we are asked for the average of -a,-b,-c; so we need to do subtraction of (1) with -ve of each term. It's (-a+b+c)/3 or -(a-b-c). So the answer is E.What is the relation between the following two sentences?
Options: neutral, entailment or contradiction.
Premise: Two dogs run across a field outside.
Hypothesis: The dogs are outside running together.
"Two dogs run across a field outside" shows that "the dogs are outside running together." This is a restatement. Both statements make sense together. If two dogs are running across a field outside, they are running together. It is also stated that "running" is a specific type of action they are doing. If two dogs are running, they are doing the same action together. Therefore, the two statements are related and make sense together. Sentence 2 is a restatement of sentence 1. Sentence 2 is more concise and easier to understand. Sentence 2 is also more direct and clear in its meaning. It is also more direct in stating the relation between the two sentences. Sentence 1 mentions "running across a field outside," and sentence 2 directly answers that question by stating "they are running together." Sentence 2 also includes "together" as a direct part of its statement, while sentence 1 leaves it to the reader's imagination or understanding. Sentence 2 uses less words than sentence 1 and has a direct relationship between sentences 1 and 2, while sentence 1 is not as direct in its relation between sentences. Therefore, sentence 2 is more direct and accurate in its relation to the two sentences it restates. Sentence 2 does not change the meaning of sentence 1, but it does provide a more concise and direct explanation of it. Sentence 1 may be interpreted as having more ambiguity or uncertainty in its meaning than sentence 2. Sentence 2 does not provide any additional information beyond sentence 1, but it does provide a better explanation and directness of its meaning in context with other sentences. So yes, Sentence 2 correctly answers the question stated in sentence 1 about what relationship between two sentences and the veracity of its content. Both sentences refer to two dogs running outside together in a field; thus they have similar subject matter and have direct correlation in terms of relationship. They have equal veracity for truth as stated within their individual sentences based on subject matter, however based on quality and content, sentence 2 appears more reliable and trustworthy as an accurate source