Eksempelet i tabellen gjør regelen lettere å forstå.

Because eksempelet is the definite singular form of the neuter noun et eksempel (an example).

• Indefinite singular: et eksempel = an example
• Definite singular: eksempelet = the example

In Norwegian Bokmål, most neuter nouns form the definite by adding -et:

• et hus → huset (the house)
• et språk → språket (the language)
• et eksempel → eksempelet (the example)

The sentence is talking about a specific example (the one in the table), so the definite form is used.

Both i and på can translate to in/on, but the choice depends on the noun and meaning.

Here tabellen is a data table / chart / table of values, and Norwegian treats that as something you are inside conceptually, so you normally say:

• i tabellen = in the table (of data)

Use i with things like lists, tables, diagrams, texts, and also rooms/containers:

• i boka (in the book)
• i listen (in the list)
• i figuren (in the figure / diagram)

På tabellen would sound more like a physical surface, e.g. something lying on top of a piece of paper that happens to be a printed table. In the sense of a row in the table, a value in the table, you almost always say i tabellen.

Tabellen is the definite singular of the noun en tabell (a table / chart).

• Indefinite singular: en tabell = a table (of data)
• Definite singular: tabellen = the table (of data)

This is a regular masculine noun:

• en bil → bilen (a car → the car)
• en stol → stolen (a chair → the chair)
• en tabell → tabellen (a table → the table)

Norwegian usually builds “the” into the noun itself using an ending, instead of a separate word like in English.

So instead of:

• the example in the table
  you get
• eksempelet i tabellen

Both eksempelet and tabellen already contain the definite article:

• et eksempel → eksempelet (the example)
• en tabell → tabellen (the table)

You don’t add an extra det / den in front in this case.
*Det eksempelet i tabellen would normally be wrong or at least sound strange, unless you are emphasizing that specific example and then you’d say det eksempelet i tabellen der (that example in the table there).

The core structure is:

• gjøre + object + adjective (or phrase)
  = make + object + adjective

So:

• gjør (makes)
• regelen (the rule) → object
• lettere å forstå (easier to understand) → description of the object

This is like English:
makes the rule easier to understand, not makes the rule to understand easier.

The natural Norwegian order is therefore:

1. Verb (gjør)
2. Object (regelen)
3. Object complement (lettere å forstå)

*gjør regelen å forstå lettere is ungrammatical; å forstå depends on lettere, not on gjør, so they must stay together: lettere å forstå.

Because we are talking about a specific rule, “the rule,” not just any rule.

• Indefinite singular: en regel = a rule
• Definite singular: regelen = the rule

So:

• gjør regelen lettere å forstå
  = makes the rule easier to understand

If you said gjør regel lettere å forstå, it would sound wrong; a singular countable noun in this position almost always needs either:

• an article: en regel (a rule), or
• the definite form: regelen (the rule)

Lettere is the comparative form of the adjective lett (easy).

• Positive: lett = easy
• Comparative: lettere = easier
• Superlative: lettest = easiest

So:

• lett å forstå = easy to understand
• lettere å forstå = easier to understand

You normally don’t say *mer lett for easier; you use the built‑in comparative lettere instead. (There are adjectives that use mer, but lett is not one of them.)

Å forstå is the infinitive of the verb forstå (to understand).

• å
  • verb = English to
    • verb
      
      • å forstå = to understand
      • å lese = to read
      • å lære = to learn

In the phrase lettere å forstå, the verb forstå depends on lettere:

• lettere å forstå = easier to understand

So the full structure is:

• gjør regelen (object)
• lettere å forstå (adjectival phrase describing that object)

Without å, *lettere forstå would be ungrammatical; infinitives almost always require å unless it’s one of the special cases where å is dropped after certain verbs (like vil, kan, skal, må, bør, får).

Not in this sentence. For å forstå usually means “in order to understand” and introduces a purpose clause:

• Jeg leser boka for å forstå regelen.
  = I read the book in order to understand the rule.

In lettere å forstå, å forstå is part of the structure lett(ere) å + infinitive, which expresses how easy/difficult something is:

• lett å forstå = easy to understand
• vanskelig å forklare = difficult to explain
• umulig å gjøre = impossible to do

If you said *lettere for å forstå, it would sound like you are trying to say “easier in order to understand” – which doesn’t make sense. So here it must be lettere å forstå, not for å forstå.

Yes, that sentence is grammatically correct and natural:

• Eksempelet i tabellen gjør at regelen er lettere å forstå.
  = The example in the table makes it so that the rule is easier to understand.

Differences:

1. Original sentence:

   • gjør regelen lettere å forstå
   • Compact, direct: makes the rule easier to understand.

2. Alternative sentence:

   • gjør at regelen er lettere å forstå
   • Literally: makes that the rule is easier to understand, i.e. causes the rule to be easier to understand.

Both are fine; the original is a bit tighter stylistically, while gjør at … explicitly highlights the causal relationship (makes it so that…).