Given the Question and Answer pair, detect whether the answer is acceptable or not. Denote acceptable answer as "yes", otherwise denote as "no". An acceptable answer is consistent with the context in question, detailed, long, and uses general knowledge of English. Answers that are not definite and suggest a variety of options are not acceptable answers.

Question: I need a single-word to describe something good that (unexpectedly) resulted from something bad. This good thing could not have occurred without the bad event happening first, as a precursor. Example sentence: "I got in a horrible car accident and broke my leg, but falling in love with my nurse at the hospital was the ____," (something like that). 
Answer: The word irony has undergone a bit of a semantic shift and is often used for a perceived contradiction, among others a contradiction between one's expectations and an actual fact or event. Merriam-Webster gives as one of its meanings incongruity between the actual result of a sequence of events and the normal or expected result and continues with examples in which the outcome is worse than expected; but it can be used for better outcomes as well, like in your case: "Falling in love with the nurse was the irony of my accident." Or "ironically, getting fired was the best thing that had happened to me in a long time".
no

Question: I frequently encounter phrases like this: "It allows to apply these features to customisable sets of fonts". My question is whether this is proper English or not? In my mind, "it allows the application of ..." or "it allows one to apply ..." sound much better. I suspect that this is a Germanism (that would explain why I hear it so often), but it would be nice to know for sure. 
Answer: I just ran a Google Books ngram and saw that from 1800-2012 the incidence of It allows to has risen from 0.0000011% to 0.0000053%. The biggest rise was from 1980 until now: 0.000002%-0.0000053%. From what I can tell from the books in which this appears, the most recent are technical writing by non-native-speakers of English. A couple from the 19th century are legitimate English: the assembly may compel the observance of a proper decorum by all persons, whom it allows to be present at its proceedings. and It assembles more frequently, and at its own time, without any control from the king ; and it allows to him only a ... Jim's example, It allows to pass certain particles while trapping others, is certainly, as he says, unwieldy because it's not parallel: It allows to pass certain particles and {allows not / disallows} others. which is a style monster regardless of the parallel construction. It should be: It allows certain particles to pass {while trapping / but traps / but disallows} others. The syntax is so bad in that sentence that, however grammatically valid it is, Fowler would retch after reading it. Merely thinking it up would violate the admonition against secret sin in the Sermon on the Mount, and actually writing it for public consumption would cause the reader as much pain as would driving a wooden stake through the heart of the sleeping Dracula cause the vampire. Your conclusion that "'it allows the application of ...' or 'it allows one to apply ...' sound much better" is absolutely correct. That's what language is about in part: what it sounds like. If it sounds bad, it is bad, grammar be damned.
yes

Question: I have been using the term ofcourse ever since kindergarten. However, I recently stumbled upon a site that claims of course is how the term is correctly used and not ofcourse. I would like to seek the community's opinion about which is the correct usage of that term. 
Answer: I just checked Merriam-Webster dictionary and it has ofcourse defined as a 'matter of course', i.e. a natural flow of events.

no