when **** before **** began

The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction： its numbers are now 5 times greater than when the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's:tick:.




:?:Question: In my opinion， the sentence is not right whatever .
I feel the sentece should be verified to the following 1） or 2）:
1)he gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction：
its numbers are now 5 times greater than before the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's
2)The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction：
its numbers are now 5 times greater than when the use of DDT began to be sharply restricted in the early 1970's.
Am I right?



Sincere thanks for your help!

To me, the original sentence is fine as is.

Rover_KE:
Now I think it over and over and approve your statement.
"Five times" ought not to be an accurate statistic.
And the number of gyrfalcons in the 1970s is probably very similar to the number in the 1960s even in the 1950s.



Sincere thanks!

dodonaomik said:

"Five times" ought not to be an accurate statistic.

Click to expand...

It may be. That depends on the source of this sentence

And the number of gyrfalcons in the 1970s is probably very similar to the number in the 1960s even in the 1950s.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence for this in the sentence.

dodonaomik said:

:?:Question: In my opinion， the sentence is not right whatever .
I feel the sentece should be verified to the following 1） or 2）:
1)he gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction：
its numbers are now 5 times greater than before the use of DDT was sharply restricted in the early 1970's

Click to expand...

This doesn't improve things much for me. DDT affected the population. The cut-off point for this is when they changed the pattern of use of DDT, so before doesn't really help as it doesn't give us a point in time to make the comparison. Before could apply to ten or twenty years earlier.

dodonaomik said:

2)The gyrfalcon, an Arctic bird of prey, has survived a close brush with extinction：
its numbers are now 5 times greater than when the use of DDT began to be sharply restricted in the early 1970's.
Am I right?

Click to expand...

This depends on exactly how they implemented the restrictions, but as it says sharply, then it implies that the changes were sudden, so the original looks OK. Like you suggestion about the numbers in the 1960s and 1970s, it is discussing issues that fall outside the scope of this text. This reads like a piece of journalism not a scientific paper, but the general thrust is probably OK- DDT did affect some bird populations, whether the numbers were similar to the 1960s is not relevant- what matters is the comparison between the imposition of restrictions and the population now. However, if the population had been relatively stable in the decades before the 70s, then why does the writer talk about extinction. It sounds as if numbers dropped dramatically.

Tdol said:

This doesn't improve things much for me. DDT affected the population. The cut-off point for this is when they changed the pattern of use of DDT, so before doesn't really help as it doesn't give us a point in time to make the comparison. Before could apply to ten or twenty years earlier.

Click to expand...

:-DNow， I am thinking that it's really really:lol: not easy to get an accurate statistic about the number of gyrfalcons.

Tdol said:

This depends on exactly how they implemented the restrictions, but as it says sharply, then it implies that the changes were sudden, so the original looks OK. Like you suggestion about the numbers in the 1960s and 1970s, it is discussing issues that fall outside the scope of this text. This reads like a piece of journalism not a scientific paper, but the general thrust is probably OK- DDT did affect some bird populations, whether the numbers were similar to the 1960s is not relevant- what matters is the comparison between the imposition of restrictions and the population now. However, if the population had been relatively stable in the decades before the 70s, then why does the writer talk about extinction. It sounds as if numbers dropped dramatically.

Click to expand...

Yes:-D! I have to say "thank you for your great help"!!!
I approve of you very much. Yes! This is probably a journalism but not a scientific paper.
Thus now I feel it's unnecessary to use an accurate statistic.

Mr. 5jj:
Sincere thanks for your great help!

dodonaomik said:

Mr. 5jj:
Sincere thanks for your great help!

Click to expand...

There is no need to write a new post to say "Thank you". It saves us all time if you simply click the "Like" button on any post you find helpful. In addition, if you wish to address a user, just use their username. Many of the users here are female so saying "Mr XXX" would be inappropriate.