Yes, I agree completely with Michael. The software is wrong. Here 'are' is needed because it agrees with 'politicians' which is a plural noun.

Though they both have a similar meaning, there is a subtle difference. Both can mean 'to attend, to participate, to take part in.' The difference is that 参加 carries the meaning of attending the event as a spectator or simply being there, while 参与 carries the meaning of actually taking part in the event. Let's look at an example sentence: "我下周六要去参加我朋友的婚礼。I'm going to attend my friend's wedding next Saturday." The use of 参加 here implies that you are going to the wedding and will probably sit among the guests and witness it. If we replace 参加 with 参与, it would imply that you are going to the wedding, but you have a role in the events, such as being part of the wedding party. One more sentence to clarify: “他昨天晚上参与足球比赛。Last night he played in the soccer game." Here we can translate 参与 as 'played' because it is implied that he participated in the match. If we said 参加 instead, it would mean that he was present at the game, but as a spectator. Therefore we'd translate it as 'Last night he went to the soccer game.' Hope this helps. Have a nice day : )

Hi, The main difference is that 'into' is a preposition by itself. It carries the meaning of going from one place to another, or of changing from one state to another. Using your example sentence, we can say: 'They want to break into the office.' Here it's implied that they are outside the office and want to break in, from one place to another. 'The caterpillar changed into a butterfly.' In this sentence it is not about location but rather state. The caterpillar is changing from the state of being a caterpillar into a new state: being a butterfly. Now, let's look at your second sentence: 'They want to break in to the office.' Here the 'in' and the 'to' are actually separate. The 'in' is a part of the phrasal verb 'break in' and the 'to' gives a sense of direction, pointing to the office. It can also be possible that the 'to' is part of a verb. For example: 'He saw a bar and walked in to have a drink.' Here the 'in' is a preposition modifying 'walked' and the 'to' is part of the infinitive, 'to have.' How do we know when to use each one? A simple way to do it is to replace 'into' with its opposite, 'out of.' If it works, this is a suitable place to use 'into.' Again, looking at the first sentence: They want to break into the office. -----> They want to break out of the office. This sentence is okay. Now, looking at another example: He saw a bar and walked in to have a drink. -----> *He saw a bar and walked out of have a drink. The sentence above containing 'out of' is wrong, therefore we can't use 'into' here. Hope this helps. Have a nice day : )

Hi Lilian! This sentence is a little tricky because we can't translate it directly into English word-for-word. Therefore, we have to go with the idea. I think there are two ways: The first is more of a literal translation: "I'm just a typical person, one member among all the living beings of the Earth." The language here is quite formal. You may encounter it in a written text but no one would really say it that way. If you're looking for more of an informal, spoken translation, it would be something like: "I'm just a normal person, one out of many." Additionally, a common slang term for a normal person in English is "average Joe." "Average Jane" can be used if the person being referred to is female, though this is not heard as often. The term "average Joe" describes someone who has no outstanding qualities but leads a very normal life in the conventional sense. For example, they live in a normal house, make an average salary, and don't have any outstanding physical features. So, simply saying "I'm just your average Joe/Jane" can also convey the entire meaning of your original sentence, though this is very colloquial terminology. Hope this helps. I wish you have a great rest of the day!