Asylum refers to political protection. It is given to those who are persecuted for something in one country, and wish, no, are in need of sanctuary in a country that will not imprison, torture or otherwise perpetrate human rights violations against the individual who is at risk. Granting asylum is a measure that transcends and supersedes all international laws of immigration that might otherwise be in place.
Exile can be involuntary OR voluntary. Involuntary scenario: Emperor Napoleon (the first one, I think) was exiled by the French government to the Island of Elba.
All instances of exile are not punitive though. Here's an example of going into exile in order to avoid prosecution (not persecution), motion picture director Roman Polanski. Polanski chose exile to avoid criminal charges in the United States.
Voluntary scenario: Hypothetically, Polanski might have chosen to leave the U.S., in a self-imposed exile, to get away from the emotional anguish he associated with the U.S.A, where his 8+ months pregnant wife, Sharon Tate, was murdered by Charles Manson et. al. I mentioned that just for illustration purposes. It is well established that Polanski was a fugitive from justice and went into exile to a country that didn't have mutual extradition laws in place with the U.S.A. (And, unlike Gaddafi, Polanski was not accused of a crime as serious as mass homicide, which is a reason the country he fled to was willing to tolerate him.
Corrupt head of state example
Baby Doc Duvalier went into exile in France, once his oppressive totalitarian regime was overthrown by the people of Haiti. It was not so much a matter of France offering him political asylum, as France tolerating him to live there, an ocean away from Haiti. That's an example of exile, rather than asylum. It is involuntary, as Duvalier had to get out of Haiti. It is voluntary, in that he chose France (I guess).
Regarding @Mike's follow-up comment,
So if asylum is the act of asking for protection and exile an act of being sent away, why are we talking about "corrupt head of states going to exile in another country"... it should be "head of state asking for asylum" or "country offers asylum". Why is that?
@Mike cites a specific example, a Reuters news story about Gaddafi. However, this was NOT a situation where another country offered asylum to Gaddafi (the corrupt head of state that Mike referenced). Here is the relevant part of the Reuters article:
Burkinabe Foreign Minister Yipene Djibril Bassolet said that Gaddafi
could go into exile in his country even though it is a signatory of
the International Criminal Court, which has charged him crimes against
humanity.
"In the name of peace, I think we will take, with our partners in the
international community, whatever steps are necessary," Bassolet said,
without giving any other details.
It is important to note that Burkinabe Foreign Minister Bassolet said Gaddafi could go into exile in his country. He was willing to tolerate Gaddafi as an exile in his country only for the sake of expedience, to end civil war in Libya with associated loss of life. It was offered for the greater good of peace.
That is very different than granting political asylum to Gaddafi! It offers no guarantees of permanence unlike being granted political asylum. Being allowed entry as an exile, under conditions of duress (e.g. as Burkino Faso proposed), is an emergency measure. Gaddafi would have had to accept whatever terms he was offered by Burkino Faso, even it meant house arrest or confinement in primitive circumstances in exchange for assurance of his physical safety. The world community would have censured a country who was a signatory to the International Criminal Court, yet gave Gaddafi asylum.
This is the distinction between exile and asylum, although you may notice the words being misused, for political reasons, at times.
Blurry can always be replaced by blurred (except in the word blurry-eyed), but not always vice versa. IMO, blurry, for the most part, fits all three meanings of blurred in the OALD excerpt, not just the first.
However, blurred has another use which blurry doesn't duplicate, and the dictionary doesn't bring out (probably because it's hard to do without examples). When blurred follows is, was, etc., (i.e. the picture was blurred), it can take a modifier or modifier phrase (e.g. the picture was blurred by the rain or the picture was badly blurred). Blurry cannot be used nearly as extensively in this way.
To go into nuances, even in the places where blurry and blurred are interchangeable, blurred suggests a previous state of non-blurriness and may suggest a perpetrator, whereas blurry only reports the state of the object and doesn't connote much more. The distinction is, however, only slightly observed in common usage.
Best Answer
Perfectly normal. It presupposes that failing the test would be undesirable, and asserts that it might happen.
This sounds like a non-native speaker error to me. If I heard it, my best guess would be that the speaker meant "There is a risk of failing the test." (Context might suggest a different interpretation, though.)
I am American, and neither accept nor comprehend your sentence, so I think you're mistaken about that.
This is by a non-native speaker (see https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-measles-outbreak-vaccine-misinformation-targeting-somali-americans/), so is not a great example of what Americans accept or comprehend. That said, the idea being expressed is a complicated one, and I could well imagine a native speaker also stumbling a bit over how to express it (especially since news interviews can be stressful). In context, the meaning seems to be roughly "Are you going to vaccinate your child against measles, believing that this creates a risk of autism?"
These all seem more-or-less fine to me, though in the "taking a risk" examples I would have preferred "by verbing" or "in verbing" rather than "to verb".
In these examples, note that the verb phrase is not a complement of the noun risk; for example, it's not *"it could really be {a risk to put themselves out there}", but rather "it {could really be a risk} {to put themselves out there}", such that it's synonymous with "Putting themselves out there could really be a risk". (It doesn't indicate what the risk is of, though perhaps the context makes it clear.)
Also note that this is a somewhat different sense of the noun risk, in that it's being applied here to the risky action, whereas in your first example it's being applied to the probability of the undesired result. (This sort of flexibility, where the same word can be applied to multiple different elements of a situation, is pretty common in English; for example, "vegetarian" people eat "vegetarian" food, a "happy" occasion makes participants feel "happy", and so on.)
This one sounds wrong to me, but since it's paraphrasing a judge's order, maybe it's just legalese? (Lawyers have their own idioms.) I would have said something like "Stewart found that Bundy, 69, remains a danger to the community, and that there's a risk he would flee".
These sound fine to me.
Agreed.
These are fine.
I don't know what this is supposed to mean. Do you mean "There was a risk in attending that meeting"?
These are grammatically fine, but the meaning is odd: they presuppose that someone is intentionally failing the test (to achieve some desired outcome), and state that it's merely a "risk" that some undesired outcome may result (as well or instead). It's possible to imagine such a situation, but it's definitely not how tests usually work!
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.