I think if 豪華 was translated here as luxurious it would have a more positive meaning. But if you look up the meanings of extravagant, it means:
So even though the word can be used to describe something like “an extravagant holiday”, it’s actual meaning isn’t particular positive since it implies waste.
Well, however you want to take an arbitrary English translation, 豪華 is overall a positive word in Japanese which is how the grammar should be evaluated
If I may reword what I was trying to say.
The problem I see with this sentence is that, personally, I don’t find that the entrance fee being expensive is a contradiction to the merchandise being extravagant. That’s what one would expect, which is why I don’t think saying “On the other hand” fits well here.
Whether they’re positive or negative, depends on the person. But they’re not opposite either way. Opposite statements would be:
“The merchandise is extravagant. On the other hand, the entrance fee is a small sum.”
OR:
“The merchandise is NOT extravagant. On the other hand, the entrance fee is a large sum.”
At least that’s what makes sense to me.
If we’re talking about the English only, then those sentences don’t sound like natural English.
“The restaurant is delicious, but on the other hand it is expensive” is a natural sentence.
“The restaurant is delicious, but on the other hand it is cheap” is odd.
You’re changing a couple of the words being used though 
The contradiction isn’t one of fact but one of feeling or values etc. The speaker can oppose any two parts of the same thing and put them in opposition to each other to make a rhetorical point.
“The flipside of Japanese people having such good manners is that no one will talk to me on the train!”
This isn’t a contradiction of fact but a statement of how the speaker feels about two facts (which are two sides of the same thing). Although actually I personally want no one to talk to me on the train and would avoid anyone who tried to do that…
Taking the example being discussed:
商品が豪華である反面、参加費が高額だ。
The other side of the merchandise being luxurious is that the participation fee is high. This is isn’t meant to be a contradiction of fact but just rhetorically drawing the reader’s attention to the writer’s feelings about these two things (luxury=good, expensive=bad).
I could be wrong but I read this structure as presenting two facts about one thing (which by definition won’t be inconsistent since they are just facets of the same thing) and then draws your attention to them as being somehow contrasting based on some value judgement. The value judgement itself could be more or less objective depending on what it is, though. Thoughts?
Unfortunately this is the problem with sentences created without context. You don’t really know what the situation is, so you have to make assumptions, which might end up being wrong.
In the case of the BunPro sentence, I guess I could see this being “on the other hand” if the writer is talking about a situation where the merchandise at this place is luxurious, but the entrance fee used to be free (or inexpensive) but now it is expensive. Is this the situation the writer is being faced with?
My issue with it is that, normally, you would equate luxurious = expensive. Like when you go to an auction, the entry fee is usually expensive, which correlates with the value of the articles being auctioned. But again, I’m not sure what’s the situation here. Perhaps the BunPro team could add a setting before sentences like this in order to provide context (I know…more work, lol).
This definitely appears to be a translation issue, I have fixed it so that it is now:
商品が豪華である**反面** 、参加費が高額だ。
While the products may be luxurious, the participation fee is high.
(Means that despite the products being great, the fee for participation makes it not worth it. My guess would be some sort of exclusive buyers club that requires a membership)
Rather than:
商品が豪華である**反面** 、参加費が高額だ。
The merchandise is extravagant, on the other hand, the entrance fee is a large sum.
Also there was another one with a little strange English that didn’t reflect the grammar point well, so I changed the English in that too.
Old:
彼は慎重な**反面** 、消極的なところがあります。
He is cautious, on the other hand, he has negative tendencies.
New:
彼は慎重な**反面** 、消極的なところがあります。
On the other hand to him being deliberate, he has a conservative side.
(Means he is capable of taking well thought out action, but often doesn’t)
Note: It might be a little colloquial, but I’m going to add ‘on the flip side’ as another potential translation of 反面. It’s actually really close to the literal translation and rolls off the tongue a bit better in modern English. Feel free to let me know if anyone disagrees with this addition! I am not sure how common the phrase is in other English speaking countries.
Asher to the rescue!!
Yes, that makes more sense now. And I’m good with the added translation, “on the flip side”, but I’m from America. That said, as you mentioned, it might be different in other English speaking countries.
お疲れ様でした！そして、いつも直してくれて本当にありがとうございました。
Thanks for replying and updating those sentences!
Canadian here, and I’m on board for adding “on the flip side”.
Is “on the other hand to…” grammatical English?
Perhaps a little uncommon, but I don’t think incorrect? It’s a transitional phrase, so if there’s no previous sentence it’s transitioning to, it would need the ‘to’ to indicate that the transition is yet to come.
I used it that way habitually though, so there’s always the chance it could but incorrect 
.
I have never before heard “on the other hand” used orthographically before “on the one hand” in a sentence. My intuition says that it should be “on the other hand from”, but it’s a weak intuition given the rarity.
It’s a living language of course, but there are so many instances in bunpro, in both example sentences, and grammar descriptions, of weird English grammar. The work of writing a textbook is finding clear, simple, natural examples. This is not that.
As another example, what does “gone off that…” mean in the prompt/hint for the とされている grammar point.
Disclaimer: I speak a mix of British and American English, and I am aged, so perhaps this is just what you cool kids say.
To ‘go off’ is the default hint across most of the website for any grammar point that includes する as a part of it (specifically when it is used in a presumptive way), as it’s the closest equivalent phrase we have in English. We usually include this in the grammar explanation as well.
If you find anything that seems off, feel free to let us know either here or in the direct feedback as well. There are many instances where the English may be bent a bit to highlight the grammar point, but there shouldn’t be any outright grammatical errors.
Edit - Note that we are planning a big polish of N5 and N4 in terms of both the writeups and the sentence translations very soon. Just to make them as clear and succinct as possible where applicable. This is mostly being done based on what we have learned in the process of doing the writeups for all 1000ish grammar points, what feedback we have received, and what, in hindsight, was actually just not that amazing to begin with.
“To go off” is a synonym for “to explode”. Is that the intended meaning?
I see the point you are making, but particle verb phrases in English have many meanings, and part of the onus of learning is on the learner themselves to put X and Y together. The same could be said for ‘to take off’ being a synonym for ‘to undress’, ‘to launch’, or ‘to become popular’. We don’t use ‘to go off’ because it means ‘to explode’, we use ‘to go off’ because it can mean ‘judging from’. However, からする, にする, とする are all quite similar to ‘to go off’ in their idiomatic use of language to convey information, which is why it was chosen as the most suitable phrase for helping users put the X and Y together.
I will leave this open to other people to respond as well, as there is no 100% correct answer for what is best. It is just the logic behind why we chose what we did for the hints/grammar explanations.
Thanks for the explanation, Asher. In my dialect, I cannot use “going off” in this way.
Interesting, thanks for informing me about this! What is completely natural English for one person may not be for the next. This is always a challenge when trying to find the descriptions that fit the best with different grammar structures.
I work in the corporate world, and I hear this phrase almost daily in meetings.
Typically it’s used in the following way:
“going off of what you just said. . .”
“to go off what X just said. . .”
Mind you, our default language is American English, so that tends to dictate what written language we use, but our offices are around the world (including the UK and Australia) so you end up hearing a lot of different phrases in meetings that you may not have initially been familiar with.
Ah. I would definitely say “following (on) from…”
Thanks everyone