A sentence from Economist that really confused me. "Much as the car and the clock did in their time, so today the smartphone is poised to enrich lives, reshape entire industries and transform societies" How do you explain "much as" and "so". These two grammatical words almost drove me crazy.

A sentence meaning Ideally, governments and economists would be able to explain what is going on sufficiently well for people to relax about finding more things to manufacture with more efficiency. What does it mean? I am so confused. your answer would be so much appreciated!. :)

A grammar question. A man has many cars. He recently bought a MINI. He uses all his cars now. Then there is another man who wants to what brand his cars are. Here is their dialogue. A:“I heard you have bought a MINI. What was your last car?” “My last car was an Audi.” B:“I heard you have bought a MINI. What is your last car?” “My last car is an Audi.” Which one is right.? He still uses the Audi. So is "was" right?

I am confused with the meanings of two sentences in Economist. "How long the rupture will last and whether it intensifies will depend upon the response of Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin—and above all on whether he steps back from escalating the bloody insurrection in eastern Ukraine that he has encouraged. He shows not the slightest sign of doing so. If anything, his belligerence towards the West and his preference for surly isolation are growing." "He shows not the slightest sign of doing so" what does it mean? What on earth does Mr. Putin show? The slightest sign or "not" the slightest sign? What does "if anything" mean here?

I have been driven crazy by a grammatical problem. A: "Plug this wire into ports of cars" B: "Plug this wire into the port of the car" C: "Plug this wire into the port of car" D: "Plug this wire into ports of car" E: "Plug this wire into port of car" This was part of dialogue when an engineer was trying to explain how a certain kind of wire work. By "car" and"port", he didn't mean a specific car or wire, rather, he meant the general idea. What I have learnt in grammar is we use plural form to refer to a general idea of a certain thing. So which one is right?

A grammatical question. "Other factors come into play: national taste, regional preferences, custom and religion." Why is "preference" in plural form here, while others in singular?

Two sentences that confused me in Economist. "To Asian culture buffs, a tranquil Japanese garden built two decades ago in Houston is in the Daimyo strolling style. Today the garden is a shady oasis, thronged at weekends by Hispanic families filming themselves by its carp-filled pond. But its origins were tangled up with a tense economic summit for G7 nations, held in Houston in 1990. Japan's prime minister announced a gift of a precious tea house during the meeting." My first question is "in the Daimyo strolling style". What does that exactly mean? Is it "like a garden possessed by Daimyo, one where people can stroll"? Second one. "Its origins were tangled up with a tense economic summit for G7nations." What does "it origins" refer to? "Tangled up with a tense economic summit"? What does that mean? Your answers would be so much appreciated. :)

There is a sentence that confused me in Foreign Affairs. There is an article about Obama's foreign blueprint he outlined in his speech in the Westpoint. In this article, there is a sentence: Force cannot be the go-to method of solving problems.(short version, to that effect) What does "go-to" mean here? Your kind answer would be appreciated!