Learn Hardcore German: Die Gefahr im Garten ist gering, deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen. - The danger in the garden is low, therefore the children play outside.

In Die Gefahr im Garten ist gering, it’s not so much an immediate, concrete danger (like “a dog is attacking”) but more “the level of risk in the garden is low.” German often uses Gefahr for:

Gefahr ist gering / groß – the risk is low / high
Es besteht keine Gefahr. – There is no danger / risk.
Lebensgefahr – danger to life, life-threatening danger

So the sentence is really about the degree of risk rather than a single concrete “dangerous object.”

Why is it die Gefahr and not just Gefahr ist gering?

German normally uses an article with nouns, even abstract ones, where English might omit it.

Die Gefahr ist gering. – The danger / risk is low.
Saying Gefahr ist gering would sound incomplete or poetic.

Die is used because:

Gefahr is grammatically feminine: die Gefahr.
A specific, known or previously mentioned kind of danger is implied: the (possible) danger in the garden.

If you wanted to speak in a very general way, you’d usually rephrase, e.g.:

Es besteht nur geringe Gefahr. – There is only a small risk.
Gefahr besteht kaum. – There is hardly any danger. (still sounds a bit “elevated”/formal)

But in normal everyday German, die Gefahr with an article is the standard form here.

What is im in im Garten? Why not in dem Garten?

im is a contraction of in dem:

in + dem = im

So:

im Garten = in dem Garten – in the garden

Garten is masculine (der Garten). After the preposition in with a static location (“where?”), German uses dative:

nominative: der Garten
dative: dem Garten
contracted: im Garten

You could say in dem Garten, but in everyday speech and writing im Garten is far more common and sounds more natural.

Why is it ist gering and not ist klein? What’s the difference between gering, klein, and niedrig?

All three can translate as “small/low,” but they are used in different ways:

gering – low, slight (mostly for abstract quantities or degrees)
- die Gefahr ist gering – the risk is low
- geringe Wahrscheinlichkeit – low probability
- geringe Kosten – low costs
klein – small in size or quantity, very general word
- ein kleines Haus – a small house
- ein kleines Kind – a small / young child
- With Gefahr, kleine Gefahr sounds odd; you normally say geringe Gefahr.
niedrig – low in terms of level/height/measurement
- niedrige Temperatur – low temperature
- niedrige Preise – low prices
- niedriger Wasserstand – low water level

So for Gefahr, the natural collocation is gering (or hoch for high risk), not klein or niedrig.

✅ Die Gefahr ist gering.
❌ Die Gefahr ist klein. (understandable but not idiomatic)
❌ Die Gefahr ist niedrig. (unusual with Gefahr)

What is deshalb exactly? Is it a conjunction like “because”?

deshalb is not a conjunction like weil (“because”). It is a sentence adverb (often called a “conjunctive adverb” or Konnektoradverb).

Function:

It means “therefore / for that reason / so”.
It connects two main clauses logically:
- Die Gefahr im Garten ist gering, deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen.
  → The risk is low; therefore the children play outside.

Grammar effect:

Because it is an adverb in the first position of a main clause, it triggers verb-second word order:
- deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen, not deshalb die Kinder spielen draußen.

So:

weil = subordinating conjunction (verb goes to the end in its clause)
deshalb = adverb in a main clause (verb stays in 2nd position)

Why is there a comma before deshalb? Is that mandatory?

You have two independent main clauses:

Die Gefahr im Garten ist gering
deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen

They are joined only by a comma plus the adverb deshalb, not by a coordinating conjunction like und, aber.

According to modern German rules:

A comma is allowed and usual between two main clauses in this structure.
In practice, you almost always write it:
- Die Gefahr im Garten ist gering, deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen.

Without the comma, the sentence is harder to read and stylistically worse, even if some style guides treat it as “optional.” For learners, it’s safest and best style to keep the comma here.

Why is it deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen and not deshalb die Kinder spielen draußen?

German main clauses follow the verb-second (V2) rule:

The finite verb (here: spielen) must be in second position in the clause.
The first position can be almost any “block” (subject, adverb, object, etc.).

Here:

First position: deshalb
Second position: spielen (the verb)
Then: die Kinder draußen

So:

✅ deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen – correct V2 word order
❌ deshalb die Kinder spielen draußen – verb is in 3rd position, which is wrong in a main clause

If you put the subject first, you also keep V2:

✅ Die Kinder spielen deshalb draußen.
(1: Die Kinder, 2: spielen)

Can I also say Die Kinder spielen deshalb draußen? Is there any difference?

Yes, that’s perfectly correct:

Die Kinder spielen deshalb draußen.

Differences:

deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen
– Emphasis is slightly more on the reason (“for that reason… the children are playing outside”).
Die Kinder spielen deshalb draußen
– More neutral focus on the children, and deshalb is just an adverb inside the clause.

Both are grammatical and natural. German allows movement of such adverbs as long as the verb stays in second position:

Heute spielen die Kinder deshalb draußen.
Die Kinder spielen heute deshalb draußen.

All of these are fine; the nuance is mostly about what you want to highlight.

Why is draußen at the end of the sentence? Can its position change?

draußen is an adverb of place (“outside”). In deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen, it naturally goes near the end.

A common guideline for adverb order in German is Te-Ka-Mo-Lo:

Temporal (when?)
Kausal (why?)
Modal (how?)
Lokal (where?)

So: … spielen die Kinder [Te] [Ka] [Mo] [Lo]draußen.

In this sentence we only see the local information (draußen), so it falls to the end by default.

You can move draußen for emphasis or style, as long as you keep verb-second:

Draußen spielen die Kinder. – “Outside, the children are playing.” (emphasis on “outside”)
Die Kinder spielen draußen. – neutral

With deshalb:

Deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen. – neutral
Draußen spielen die Kinder deshalb. – sounds marked / unusual; normally you wouldn’t end with deshalb here.

Could I also say Weil die Gefahr im Garten gering ist, spielen die Kinder draußen? How does that differ from using deshalb?

Yes, that is fully correct and very natural:

Weil die Gefahr im Garten gering ist, spielen die Kinder draußen.

Differences:

Structure & word order
- Weil introduces a subordinate clause:
  - weil die Gefahr im Garten gering ist → verb (ist) goes to the end.
- The main clause remains verb-second:
  - …, spielen die Kinder draußen.
Emphasis
- weil … directly states the cause (“because…”).
- deshalb … emphasizes the result (“therefore…”).
Tone
- Weil … is very common in spoken and written German.
- deshalb … feels a bit more like “logical argumentation” (written, explanatory, but also used in speech).

Meaning-wise, they’re almost equivalent:

Die Gefahr im Garten ist gering, deshalb spielen die Kinder draußen.
Weil die Gefahr im Garten gering ist, spielen die Kinder draußen.

Both express: the kids are outside because the risk in the garden is low.

Why is it die Kinder and not just Kinder?

In German, you normally need an article with plural countable nouns, unless you mean “children in general” in a very generic sense.

Here:

die Kinder = the children (some specific children that speaker and listener can identify from context: the family’s kids, the neighborhood children, etc.)

If you said just Kinder spielen draußen, that would sound more like a general statement or a scene description:

Kinder spielen draußen. – Children are playing outside. (some children, no specific group identified)

In the original sentence, a concrete group is implied (e.g. “our children”), so die Kinder is the natural choice.