Please kindly help to explain the following sentences:

1) After selecting and reviewing randomly selected samples, we did not identify errors we felt warranted audit projection.

2) There was sufficient information within the international intelligence community about this individual that we felt warranted his deportation back to one of – he had dual citizenship – of one of two countries.

3) As a result of our initial searches, we identified approximately 100 citations which we felt warranted listing.

4) Some Resumania examples are so classic, we've inducted them into the "Hall of Fame." Listed here are some classics we felt warranted this distinction.

They all bear a similarity because "we felt warranted" is positioned between two noun phrases. However, I don't quite get at the relation or meaning of these two noun phrases. Is the relation a kind of cause-and-effect? Or, is one noun phrase the thing that acted, while the other the thing that is acted upon? What does the word "warrant" mean here? Does it mean "secure," "promise," or "justify"? In most cases, "warrant' serve as a transitive verb, but what is its object here--"we" or "one of the two noun phrases in each sentence"? I would appreciate it if anyone would spare a few minutes unpuzzling these questions of mine.
1 2
An excellent question.
I'm sorry I can't answer it for you, but these constructions are very sophisticated and demonstrate a great command of the language.
I hope someone better at explaining grammar can help.
I'm sorry, I disagree totally. Writing that is so "sophisticated" as to be unintelligible to native speakers does not demonstrate a "great command" of the language.

The fact that someone uses long words and complex constructions, instead of simple words and clear constructions does NOT automatically make him a good writer.

If the writing is not readily understood, the writer has FAILED, no matter how impressive his vocabulary, or elaborate his sentence structures.
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Dear guest,
Are you a native speaker?
Which part do you find unintelligible? None of it is unintelligible to me, on the other hand it is very easy for me to understand.
Which part do you have trouble or take exception to or with? Are the words used really so uncommon? I don't think so. I do not believe that any native of intermediate ability would have any trouble at all with these.
Perhaps you would like to rewrite it in order to demonstrate how it may be made more digestible by those who seem to have trouble with such constructions (which I may add are fairly common).
In order to try to help the original poster, I will try to help clarify the use of 'warrant' (which in the above cases has a similar meaning to 'justify')
1...we did not identify errors we felt warranted audit projection.
....we did not find any mistakes which we thought justified audit projection.
2 .. there was sufficient information to justify his deportation
3 .. 100 citations were found, which they believed they were worthy of listing.
4 'Resumania' what does this mean? I guess it is a play on words.
Resume + Mania = resumania ; a resume written in maniacal style.
... So, some resumes were so resumaniacal that they were put into in some "Hall of fame".
I guess citations is a legal word. But let me ask you, would a court take these citations as evidence to deport this citizen? Have I used the word "citations" correctly? Thanks in advance.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Without the context it is difficult to know to which type of citation the writer refers. It is possible they are referring to some kind of award.
Citation; an official award (as for bravery or service) usually given as formal public statement
. Maj, I think it is also likely these sentences are not actually related to each other.
To Conus Lotus (ref. your earlier post)

Yes, I am a native speaker.

OK, I will try to explain why the quoted sentences are not an outstanding example of English (in my opinion).

Please bear with me, this might be long.Emotion: wink

Sentence No. 1

"After selecting and reviewing randomly selected samples..." This is repetitive and/or contradictory.

Did "we" select the samples, or was it random (Fate made the choice)? I suggest: "After reviewing randomly-selected samples". (I would use a hyphen with "randomly selected" as the whole phrase forms an adjective, but this is just personal taste).

"...we did not find..."

It sounds slightly odd to to use "did not" at this point. The more logical form is: "After A, B happened". Not: "After A, B did NOT happen".

We could rewrite, to use the positive form of the verb: "After reviewing randomly-selected samples, we found no errors..."

In fact, it was presumably DURING the review (not afterwards) that no errors were found.

In which case:

"During a review of randomly-selecetd samples, we found no errors..."

Or even better: "A review of randomly-selected samples found no errors..." (passive voice, not first person, is the convention for scientific writing, e.g. reporting results of a study).

"...we felt warranted..."

Again, if this is a report of a formal study (I'm not sure if it is) passive voice is more appropriate. Passive voice sounds more detached and objective. "How we felt" is not relevant in this type of writing.

So, I suggest: "A review of randomly-selected samples found no errors that warranted..."

And finally:

"...audit projection...".

What is this? I understand the word "audit". I understand the word "projection". But "audit projection" has no meaning to me, as a phrase. If I had to guess, I'd say perhaps it has something to do with predicting future audit failures. Or do they mean SCHEDULING future audits (if there were sufficient errors, they would schedule one)? If so, perhaps we can simplify the whole thing to:

"A review of randomly-selected samples found no errors that warranted audit"

OR (simpler still):

"A review of randomly-selected samples found no audit was warranted"

I am tired after reviewing Sentence 1! Perhaps I could do Sentences 2 and 3 later?Emotion: wink
I still fail to see why you claimed unintelligability.
Granted there is repetition of one word in the first sentence, but it is pretty obvious this is not a formal work, and I think you are (for some reason I don't understand) being overly picky.
I too am pressed for time, but I will try to review your other, unduly picky (in my opinion) criticisms tomorrow.
I do thank you for finally offering some constructive comment on the original post (even if it is in my opinion picky).
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
Show more