About omission

[wolfand]

I got confused when I have to omit repeated words, as follows.



1. However 70% of over 49yr olds study for interest in comparison to 18% studying for career reasons in that age group.

-In above sentence, "of over 49yr olds" is omitted. Do native speakers understand that kind of omissions? Is the above sentence correct?


2. The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65.

-Also, above sentence omitted many things before "in women aged 40-65."
Is the above sentence correct?

 

[Raymott]

I got confused when I have to omit repeated words, as follows.



1. However 70% of over 49yr olds study for interest in comparison to 18% studying for career reasons in that age group.

-In above sentence, "of over 49yr olds" is omitted. Do native speakers understand that kind of omissions? Is the above sentence correct?

Yes, it's relatively unambiguous (depending of course on the sentence previous to that one). It's also logically consistent since it compares 70% interest, 18% career, and there's only one age group mentioned. It would be a strange sentence if it ended " ... in the under 49yr group", because that wouldn't be a comparison at all.

2. The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65.

-Also, above sentence omitted many things before "in women aged 40-65."
Unambiguous. What do you think it could mean?
Is the above sentence correct?
Not really. It probably means, "three times as great". Otherwise it's correct.

R.

 

[5jj]

1. However 70% of over 49yr olds study for interest in comparison to 18% studying for career reasons in that age group.

-In the above sentence, "of over 49yr olds" is omitted. Do native speakers understand that kind of omissions? Yes
Is the above sentence correct? Some people might prefer 'who study' to 'studying', but I think your sentence is fine.


2. The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65.

-Also, the above sentence omitted many things before "in women aged 40-65." It would be very tedious to have to read what you have omitted.
Is the above sentence correct?
I don't think many people would have a problem with it. If you want to avoid upsetting the pedants, try:

The heart attack rate is found to be greater in women aged 65 and above than in women aged 40-65.

or even

The heart attack rate in women is found to be greater in those aged 65+ than (in) those aged 40-65

5

 

[wolfand]

R.

Thank you so much! What you gave me would be a realy great help!

 

[wolfand]

Thank you for your answering.

But, I have a furtherquestion about your answer.

The reason you corrected the original sentence "The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65. " into

"The heart attack rate in women is found to be greater in those aged 65+ than (in) those aged 40-65" is that I have to place "in women aged" nearby "than in women aged 40-65" ?

If so, that is a kind of absolute rule? or just for reader's comprehension?
Was the original sentence incorrect?

 

[5jj]

you corrected the original sentence "The heart attack rate in women aged 65 and higher is found to be three times greater than in women aged 40-65. " [...]

If so, that is a kind of absolute rule? or just for reader's comprehension?
Was the original sentence incorrect?

I didn't intend to give the impression that I was 'correcting' it. I was suggesting a way to remove any possibility of ambiguity - and there wasn't much in the first place.

There is no kind of absolute rule, merely general advice to make your writing as unambiguous as possible.

The original sentence was correct, IMO.

Incidentally, Ray and I posted almost sinultaneously. Though his answers are slightly different from mine, I am very happy with them. If he had posted earlier, I would not have written at all.

 

[wolfand]

5

I didn't intend to give the impression that I was 'correcting' it. I was suggesting a way to remove any possibility of ambiguity - and there wasn't much in the first place.

Thank you for your follow-up answer.

In fact, every piece of sentence or corrections is really valuable and helpful for me. So, I always try to dwell on others' comments. Actually, without enough considering, I tend to misunderstood.