Quote:
Originally Posted by BobK The reason* that they are not synonymous is that 'affect' can mean 'affect in a good/positive way'. If you want to make affect have the meaning you want you have to add a word - something like 'affect adversely'.
Of course, given the context (in this case) the "adversely" is implicit.
b
PS *Another reason is that "undercut" doesn't work in this context. I'm surprised that Longman's use it; perhaps there's some more context to the example - though I can't think what. If you "undercut" something you don't "reduce" (or "affect") it in any way; you compete with it by being smaller -
Example: My local shop charges 90p for a bottle of milk, but the new supermarket undercuts that by 30p.
I'm afraid I don't have time to check other dictionaries this morning; this is just my native speaker intuition.  |
I refered to Cambridge Dictionary today for undercut and found that it has two meaning : one similar to yours is defined as " charge lesss than competitors" , the other is '' weaken, damage ", which is synonymous to undermine. And the second meaning , from my humble opinion ,is close to that of affect!
With regards to your view that "affect" doesn't contain the "adverse"meaning, I am afraid ,I can't agree with you. As far as I know, 'affect' means ' have a bad influnce on sth.' like: The bad weather will affect the crops, the divorce affects every aspects of her life... So, I hope you can present your clarifications here!
And how wonderful it would be if only the most frequent meaning of a vocabulary were used in the textbook , as the intuition told you! It would be much easier for learners to master English!