20:19 Sep 5, 2013 |
Spanish to English translations [PRO] Law/Patents - Law (general) / Argentina | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
| Selected response from: Carl Stoll Argentina Local time: 13:34 | ||||||
Grading comment
|
Summary of answers provided | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
4 | That is indeed the case |
| ||
4 | This must be seen to be true/valid |
| ||
4 | it must be proven/shown |
| ||
4 | This must be verified |
|
That is indeed the case Explanation: Not "confirmed" but "affirmed", i.e. "asserted", or "the question must be answered in the affirmative". |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
This must be seen to be true/valid Explanation: I would suggest |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
it must be proven/shown Explanation: Reading the text, it seems that the previous (arguments/statements) cannot yield to the argument advocating an absolute change in the legal circumstances of the described relation in an of itself, that the service provider is currently a private company. It must be proven, the moment one observes the intrinsic content of Law 23.298. I think my go has the gist of it. In any event, I think want you want is "proven" or "shown." And argument can't stand alone by itself. It needs proof prevail. |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
This must be verified Explanation: ... or "confirmed" |
| |
Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) |
Login or register (free and only takes a few minutes) to participate in this question.
You will also have access to many other tools and opportunities designed for those who have language-related jobs (or are passionate about them). Participation is free and the site has a strict confidentiality policy.