omission rule

[vcolts]

Ex:

1. It is best to deal with the problem by discussing with experts than non-experts.

2. It is best to deal with the problem by discussing with experts than with non-experts.


Are both sentences above correct?

I keep having these omission rule questions in my head. If somebody knows a webpage that deals with omission rules, I would appreciate it greatly.

Thanks in advance!

[Raymott]

Ex:

1. It is best to deal with the problem by discussing with experts than non-experts.

2. It is best to deal with the problem by discussing with experts than with non-experts.


Are both sentences above correct?
No, neither is correct.
I keep having these omission rule questions in my head. If somebody knows a webpage that deals with omission rules, I would appreciate it greatly.

Thanks in advance!

You're making a comparison, but using a superlative ('best'). You need to use the comparative 'better'.
The following is better: "It is better to deal with the problem by discussing with experts than [with] non-experts."
(Experts are better than non-experts to discuss the problem with.) But I'm still not quite happy with it.
I would write: "It is better to deal with the problem by discussing with experts rather than [with] non-experts." ('With' is still optional)

Note that, even using "with", you are still omitting part of the full comparison, which is: "It is better to deal with the problem by discussing it with experts rather than by discussing it with non-experts." So, a webpage discussing omissions might not be as useful as you'd like.

[vcolts]

Thanks for correcting the superative error. However, I was more concerned with the omission of "with."

So if you overlook the superative problem (putting better), is it necessary to put "with" in that sentence?

[Raymott]

Thanks for correcting the superative error. However, I was more concerned with the omission of "with."

So if you overlook the superative problem (putting better), is it necessary to put "with" in that sentence?

I was editing my post when you replied. I think you'll find I've dealt with that.

[vcolts]

Sorry to bother you again but just to clarify:

The original sentence I used for my essay was not exactly the same one, but I am assuming that it is similar in context.

It goes something similar to the following:

The accuracy of the information would be higher/better by discussing with experts than nonexperts.
---

You have suggested that it would be better to put "rather" and "with" (with being still optional).

Question: If I do not use either, would it be grammatically inferior or awkward in any way (strictly academic/formal writing wise).

So basically if i keep it as "with experts than nonexperts," would it be grammatically awkward or weak in any way?

[Raymott]

Sorry to bother you again but just to clarify:

The original sentence I used for my essay was not exactly the same one, but I am assuming that it is similar in context.

It goes something similar to the following:

The accuracy of the information would be higher/better by discussing with experts than nonexperts.
This is not a good sentence. It doesn't matter what you write after "The accuracy of the information would be higher/better by ..." because this part is not good.
"The accuracy of the information would be higher/better if you discussed it with experts rather than [with] nonexperts."
"You can increase the accuracy by discussing this with experts rather than [with] non-experts."


You have suggested that it would be better to put "rather" and "with" (with being still optional).
Yes, but the rest of your sentence must be grammatical as well.

Question: If I do not use either, would it be grammatically inferior or awkward in any way (strictly academic/formal writing wise).
Yes, it would in most cases, even if only stylistically.

So basically if i keep it as "with experts than nonexperts," would it be grammatically awkward or weak in any way?

Yes, in most cases it would not be as good. But, as I've shown, that would depend partly on what came earlier in the sentence.
1. "Discuss this with experts than non-experts". Obviously wrong.
2. "Discuss this with experts than with non-experts". Wrong.

3. "Discuss this with experts rather than non-experts". Right
4. "Discuss this with experts rather than with non-experts". Right
You can't ignore the fact that you are making a comparison, because that mandates the choice of certain structures. In the above "A rather than B" was used.

5. "Experts are better than non-experts." Right.
6. "It is better to use experts than non-experts." Right. Here "A is/are better than B" is used.

Anyhow, I think you're asking whether your sentence - which I have bolded in black above - is acceptable or not. I say not. Perhaps others would like to comment?

[Tdol]

The accuracy of the information would be higher/better by discussing with experts than nonexperts.

I agree with Raymott that this sentence doesn't work very well. With is optional, but I would also recommend the same changes:

"The accuracy of the information would be higher/better if you discussed it with experts rather than [with] nonexperts."
"You can increase the accuracy by discussing this with experts rather than [with] non-experts."

[vcolts]

"The accuracy of the information would be higher/better by discussing with experts than with nonexperts."

I would really like to avoid using "you" in sentences like the above sentence because it was for a research paper and the subject at hand was dealing with a forecasting method in a particular field (like Sociology for example). I almost never use first person or second person in my research papers, and usually the peer reviewed articles that I read usually also do not use them (at least the good, professional ones anyways).

So if I were to rework it, I would still prefer doing it without involving any first person or second person pronoun.

[Raymott]

"The accuracy of the information would be higher/better by discussing with experts than with nonexperts."

I would really like to avoid using "you" in sentences like the above sentence because it was for a research paper and the subject at hand was dealing with a forecasting method in a particular field (like Sociology for example). I almost never use first person or second person in my research papers, and usually the peer reviewed articles that I read usually also do not use them (at least the good, professional ones anyways).

So if I were to rework it, I would still prefer doing it without involving any first person or second person pronoun.

"Discussing this with experts rather than non-experts would lead to a higher level of accuracy of the results."