"I would experience the end."
Translation:Ich würde das Ende erleben.
I am a little confused. Doing exercises without grammatical explanation is a foolish pastime - because it is not possible to learn that way! We are not parrots who simply want to repeat what we hear. We want to understand the nuances and differences so we can apply the language correctly - but in our own style. What is the point of making suggestions if they are not relevant to the exercise? What is the point of offering exercises that have no explanation when they seem to break common rules and are exceptions. Without this framework all they do is serve to confuse what we already know. Poorly selected examples such as for the current exercise, which belong elsewhere where the correct framework and appropriate context can help the learner, are quite common here. DL does not seem to respond to the feedback they are given either.
As another example - Yesterday I also explored the use of "entlang" in another exercise and one user referred to a site that indicated that it can be used as a preposition in many ways: Accusative (after the noun), Dative (after the noun but also before the noun) or Genitive (after the noun but also before the noun). This was all helpful and enlightening but it also demonstrated that the solutions offered are hardly comprehensive.
Yet another user referred to another site that gave yet another fresh perspective. The verb could be of the form "entlang<verb>" for example "entlanggehen" and is a separable verb.
With all these options it may be of interest to a language student at an advanced level of study, but such a person would not be learning on this site anyway.
It is difficult to trust a source that cannot explain the nuances. Especially with a language that prides itself in being accurate and precise. Context becomes fundamentally important.
So you received no correct communication and correction for errors made from your parents and family when you were learning to speak? You were never in daily contact and surrounded by native speakers when you were growing up listening to what they said and how they expressed themselves? And you never went to school where you were taught the rules of grammar over and over again - for your native and possible second languages? You never wrote tests for spelling, grammar, poetry, literature, creative writing etc. in the languages you were taught at school? You never had formal instruction in your native language and possible second languages during the first 18 years of your life and 12 years of formal education? You just pronounced the words and knew all the vocabulary and syntax correctly from the day you were born?
The only way people can speak AT ALL is by applying the rules of grammar. HOW they learn them differs according to circumstances but applying the rules correctly can never be circumvented by anyone who aims to speak a language even with reasonable proficiency.
Also don't confuse learning your native language(s) with a subsequent foreign language.
The proficiency of your first language also has a great influence on what level of fluency you will have in subsequent languages.
Pretty much my feelings, too, though you expressed them more eloquently--especially the final paragraph.. Don't get me wrong: I appreciate the fact that DL's a free resource. And I recognize the limitations of the form in which it's provided. It would be unrealistic to expect it to take the time to explain every subtlety and nuance of its practice sentences. What I do object to, though--as you seem to do, as well--is to refuse to recognize that, in the utter absence of context, it's necessary to allow the practitioner a little wiggle room. It needs to be a little more forgiving when a practitioner supplies an answer that is--or would be--acceptable in a certain context, assuming it were possible to know it. Taking the hard line it often does is a pedagogically poor way to help the beginner. I also agree it needs to be be more assiduous in replying to legitimate queries about the why it marks something as incorrect.
John that is merely a "rough guideline" not a rule. About 90% of German nouns ending in -e are feminine but the others are not and this is one of those "exceptions" being neutrum. Others include das Gebirge, das/der Erbe
Also there are many feminine German nouns that don't end in -e or the other typical indicators such as -ik, -heit, - keit, -schaft etc. that are also feminine in gender eg Kraft, Milch, Macht, etc.
The only answer is route learning.