In 1993, the Mississippi River flooded over the sides of its channel to cause billions of dollars of damage, far more than would likely have resulted if the river would not have flooded without the channels.
1. why is it using 'to cause billions of dollars of damage' instead of 'causing billions......?'
2..........., far more than would likely......
does it mean ......., far more than the damage which would likely........?
3...........,far more than would likely have resulted.....
can i use 'caused' to replace 'resulted'?what's the difference?
First of all, this is not a good sentence. It is unclear, ambiguous and just plain painful to read..
1. I would have said causing or and caused...
2. The use of two negations in one clause makes this sentence impossible to understand. Is the damage more than would have been if the river had not flooded? Is the writer trying to say that the channels caused more damage than they were trying to prevent? It sounds like he is saying that the flooded river with channels caused more damage than an unflooded river with no channels. Huh? What's the point of saying that?
3. Cause and result are not interchangable. Result is usually a noun.