would not have consumed any coffee products

[keannu]

1. Is this composition similar to "so (adjective)~ that" or "such a (adjective)+that" that denotes cause-and-effect? I only know those two compositions, so this is new to me.
2. Does this mean a counter-factual hypothesis for the past or the present(future)? Considering the whole context, it would have to be "who typically would not consume any coffee products" for counter-factual present or future(2nd conditional), but I learned before that even "would have p.p" can denote present or future. I'd like to know if it means a present(future) hypothesis or the past one.
**On second thought, I think it's for the past to mean the customers who already tasted the new coffee.(but I need your confirmation)

is32
ex)Because the key to the success of any marketing program is the creation of value, firms attempt to develop products and services that customers perceive as valuable enough to buy. For many customers, the product offered by one of the leading coffe companies contains enough value that they will pay upwards of $4 for a single cup of coffee. But for other customers, including 35-40 million Americans, existing coffee products have had absolutely no value, because drinking coffee caused them to suffer heartburn. Upon leaning this information, a company introduced a coffee designed to be gentle on people's stomachs. This coffee will not appeal to traditional coffee buyers, who value other elements of a coffee product, but it may create a new category of coffee drinkers, which would enable the company to reach customers who typically would not have consumed any coffee products.

 

[SlickVic9000]

(Not a Teacher)

I don't know what you're talking about with 2nd conditionals and counter-factual statements. This a simple factual statement in the present tense. This coffee apparently has sufficient value to the coffee drinking demographic that they would be willing to pay $4 for a single cup of coffee. (Which seems rather pricey to me though I don't drink it myself)

 

[keannu]

1. My question was if that composition is possible "...enough...that..." instead of "so+that" or "such+that".

2 is related to the second underline.
2. Does this "would not have consumed any coffee products" mean a counter-factual hypothesis for the past or the present(future)? Considering the whole context, it would have to be "who typically would not consume any coffee products" for counter-factual present or future(2nd conditional), but I learned before that even "would have p.p" can denote present or future. I'd like to know if it means a present(future) hypothesis or the past one.
**On second thought, I think it's for the past to mean the customers who already tasted the new coffee.(but I need your confirmation)

 

[keannu]

Maybe my second question was too big.

 

[5jj]

Does it make any clearer if I re-write it slightly?

Upon learning this information, a company introduced a coffee designed to be gentle on people's stomachs. They thought that this coffee would not appeal to traditional coffee buyers, who value(d) other elements of a coffee product, but it might create a new category of coffee drinkers, which would enable the company to reach customers who typically would not normally consumeany coffee products .

 

[keannu]

This is a question of a preparation material for university entrance exam in Korea. I think even some native speakers can make a mistake in writing, and this clumsy writing shouldn't have been included in the material. I just feel the irresponsibility of Korean material makers who are ignorant of the correct grammar.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot! That might be a possibility, but I found this in a dictonary, so "upwards of $4" seems to be used as an object for "pay". "that" just seems a conjunction as in "so~that" or "such~that" as "enough" has the meaning of "so" or "such". But I'm not hundred percent sure, and your analysis gave me a new perspective. Anyway, a native speaker teacher will confirm this. Arigato Gojaimasu!

ex)You should expect to pay upwardsof ￡50 for a hotel room.

 

[tzfujimino]

1. Is this composition similar to "so (adjective)~ that" or "such a (adjective)+that" that denotes cause-and-effect? I only know those two compositions, so this is new to me.
2. Does this mean a counter-factual hypothesis for the past or the present(future)? Considering the whole context, it would have to be "who typically would not consume any coffee products" for counter-factual present or future(2nd conditional), but I learned before that even "would have p.p" can denote present or future. I'd like to know if it means a present(future) hypothesis or the past one.
**On second thought, I think it's for the past to mean the customers who already tasted the new coffee.(but I need your confirmation)

is32
ex)Because the key to the success of any marketing program is the creation of value, firms attempt to develop products and services that customers perceive as valuable enough to buy. For many customers, the product offered by one of the leading coffe companies contains enough value that they will pay upwards of $4 for a single cup of coffee. But for other customers, including 35-40 million Americans, existing coffee products have had absolutely no value, because drinking coffee caused them to suffer heartburn. Upon leaning this information, a company introduced a coffee designed to be gentle on people's stomachs. This coffee will not appeal to traditional coffee buyers, who value other elements of a coffee product, but it may create a new category of coffee drinkers, which would enable the company to reach customers who typically would not have consumed any coffee products.

Hi, keannu!:-D
I'm interested in your first question, so please allow me to say a few words on it.

enough value that they will pay upwards of $4 for a single cup of coffee.

I'm not used to the "that" used in this way...
I first thought it could be "for which", and I re-wrote it. It didn't make any sense because "for" is already there.
However, in my opinion, it's quite different from the "so (adjective)~ that" or "such a (adjective)+that" construction.
I think the "that" used here by the writer could be something similar to :

The fact that...
The news that...

Please forgive me if I'm wrong.
I'm not a native speaker.

 

[tzfujimino]

I'm really sorry, keannu.
I was wrong about it.
You've seen my previous post, and responded to that, haven't you?
(I deleted it, but it was too late... I'm really really sorry.)
Please see the latest post.

 

[keannu]

Thanks a lot for your endeavor. It's okay that you reitererated your opinion as we both are not native speakers. I can understand. Looking at the tranlsation of the material with the question shows me that it's an apposition(equal clause) as you said. Hontoni arigato gojaimasu! :lol: