Answer:
---
Explanation:
I would need more details to answer your question.
Also your pic is unclear
Neither the man nor his brother has any idea if the brick was thrown at them.
I believe the 'sentence' meaning in this context is the 'phrase' one, yes? As Winston Churchil was well known for his notorius quotes, and one in particular he stated to satirize a writing myth in English, usually understood as a rule, when criticized about doing it. Which I believe is the one the question is refering to.
The writing 'rule' (myth) Churchill's reply satirizes is the 'Never end a sentence on a preposition' rule (i.g. as I intetionally did on the immediate sentence before this one). And his reply to it was something like 'This is the type of errant pedantry up with which I will not put.'
The 'rule' is a myth, yes, but of course what Churchill did was an exaggeration to sneeringly point out the ignorance of those who criticized him.
His sentence therefore was incorrect. One possible change to improve it could be: 'This is the type of errant pedantry which I will not put up with.'
Specially the 'up' and 'with' of 'put up with' could never go in the middle of a sentence, as 'put up with' is a phrasal verb, meaning the verb and the preposition must always be together in the correct order.
I was able to find some possible variations of what his sentence could have actually had been, but in none of them the 'up with' goes along with 'put', so either ways we can assume that his sentence was deliberately wrong.
The essay initially pretends to be a critique of a type of self-improvement book popular at the time, which claimed to tell how to achieve success. These books defined success strictly in financial terms and assumed that if anyone follows certain steps, they will be able to duplicate the accomplishments of wealthy business owners. However, Chesterton’s review of these books includes a broader social criticism. The focus on the definition of success strictly in terms of money is central to his essay. But wrapped around that issue is the idea that each person can or should perceive success on the same terms as a business leader. He illustrates the point by saying a donkey is successful at being a donkey as much as a millionaire is successful at being a millionaire, so there is no point in calling a donkey a failed millionaire or vice versa.
To counter the common assumptions about success, Chesterton describes people in various walks of life and how each might more realistically succeed. In this description, he suggests that these books falsely pretend to help people succeed in their own social circles and encourage people to try to become something they are not and cannot ever be.
Chesterton says these writers tell the ordinary man how he may succeed in his career—if he is a builder, he may succeed as a builder; or if he is a stockbroker, he may succeed as a stockbroker. Chesterton increases his satire at this point, commenting that the authors say a grocer may become a sporting yachtsman; a tenth-rate journalist may become a peer, which is a British nobleman; and a German Jew may become an Anglo-Saxon. Obviously, these transitions are unlikely or even impossible. Chesterton then criticizes the main assumption of these books and the society that produces it. By claiming that average people can follow in the steps of business tycoons such as Rothschild or Vanderbilt, the book's author is taking part in "the horrible mysticism of money," in which people worship the unlikely possibility of achieving great riches.
I read early in the morning is the correct answer