can I omit the prepositions

[enydia]

Hello, Teachers,

I saw this sentence:

It has been argued that human beings should not use animals for food, as entertainment, and in research.

Can I omit 'as' and 'in' here?

Thank you in advance.

Enydia

79-153

[xpert]

It has been argued that human beings should not use animals for food, entertainment, and research

Sounds good to me

[Raymott]

It has been argued that human beings should not use animals for food, entertainment, and research

Sounds good to me

That's OK, but you'd need to change "and" to "or".

[enydia]

That's OK, but you'd need to change "and" to "or".

??
Can you show me some explanation about this change?
Should I make a similar change in the original sentence?

Thank you in advance.

[Raymott]

??
Can you show me some explanation about this change?
Should I make a similar change in the original sentence?

Thank you in advance.

It has been argued that human beings should not use animals for food, entertainment, or in research.

Yes, "or" would be better. You want to say that animals shouldn't be used in any of these things. If you use "and", you are saying that it's OK to use them in one, or two, but not all of these things.
With "and", a researcher can say "We are complying. We are not using them for food or entertainment, therefore we are not using them for
food, entertainment, and in research."
That loophole is closed if you write "or", since a person is in breach if they are only using animals for one of these activities.
"Or" is normally used for this type of negative construction, where you want to exclude everything.

If you write a positive sentence: "Non-animal sources should be used for food, entertainment and in research", you use "and". In this positive sentence, "and" includes all.

[enydia]

It has been argued that human beings should not use animals for food, entertainment, or in research.

Yes, "or" would be better. You want to say that animals shouldn't be used in any of these things. If you use "and", you are saying that it's OK to use them in one, or two, but not all of these things.
With "and", a researcher can say "We are complying. We are not using them for food or entertainment, therefore we are not using them for
food, entertainment, and in research."
That loophole is closed if you write "or", since a person is in breach if they are only using animals for one of these activities.
"Or" is normally used for this type of negative construction, where you want to exclude everything.

If you write a positive sentence: "Non-animal sources should be used for food, entertainment and in research", you use "and". In this positive sentence, "and" includes all.

Oh, I never noticed such expressions that seems to relate to logics. -_-!
Thank you very much.

If I say 'none of the animal resorces should be used for entertainment, food and/or research', what's the exact meaning? How to understand such sentences?

[xpert]

That's OK, but you'd need to change "and" to "or".

Yeah! You're right

[Raymott]

Oh, I never noticed such expressions that seems to relate to logics. -_-!
Thank you very much.

If I say 'none of the animal resorces should be used for entertainment, food and/or research', what's the exact meaning? How to understand such sentences?

"and/or" means the reader gets to choose the meaning. Obviously you don't write this unless you mean that. For example.
"For dessert you can have apple pie and/or ice cream" This means you can have apple pie, ice cream, or apple pie and ice cream.

[enydia]

"and/or" means the reader gets to choose the meaning. Obviously you don't write this unless you mean that. For example.
"For dessert you can have apple pie and/or ice cream" This means you can have apple pie, ice cream, or apple pie and ice cream.

I'm sorry I made another mistake.
In fact, what I wanted to know is the exact meanings of the following two sentences:

1. None of the animal resorces should be used for entertainment, food and research.
2. None of the animal resorces should be used for entertainment, food or research.

[Raymott]

I'm sorry I made another mistake.
In fact, what I wanted to know is the exact meanings of the following two sentences:

1. None of the animal resorces should be used for entertainment, food and research.
One shouldn't use animals for all those three things.

2. None of the animal resorces should be used for entertainment, food or research.
One shouldn't use animals for any of those three things.

But the difference is already explained better, above.
There are very few exact meanings. I don't think it can be analysed any further.
R.