bopeng
Member
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2022
- Member Type
- Student or Learner
- Native Language
- Chinese
- Home Country
- China
- Current Location
- China
I saw a sentence from somewhere like this about Cities.
'...A third option would be to develop provincial towns and rural areas (1), by moving industry and jobs to those regions (2), in order to reduce the stress on major cities (3).'
My question is, would it be a little clearer if we interpret it as below?
A third option would be to move industry and jobs to provincial towns and rural areas (2) that would be developed too (as well / at the same time / by the way / incidentally) (1) , in order to reduce the stress on major cities (3).
The reason is:
In the original description, no matter part 3 serves part 2 (3 is the 2’s attributive) or part 1 (3 is 1’s adverbial modifier), 2 always serves 1.
Then no matter if 3 is your original purpose, 1 is always your main solution. But 1 doesn't seem the key. Instead, 2 is the major way to solve the problem.
Because developing rural areas doesn’t necessarily reduce cities’ stress, without moving cities’ industries at the same time.
But even if you move cities’ industries alone, without developing rural areas, cities’ stress still would be reduced.
'...A third option would be to develop provincial towns and rural areas (1), by moving industry and jobs to those regions (2), in order to reduce the stress on major cities (3).'
My question is, would it be a little clearer if we interpret it as below?
A third option would be to move industry and jobs to provincial towns and rural areas (2) that would be developed too (as well / at the same time / by the way / incidentally) (1) , in order to reduce the stress on major cities (3).
The reason is:
In the original description, no matter part 3 serves part 2 (3 is the 2’s attributive) or part 1 (3 is 1’s adverbial modifier), 2 always serves 1.
Then no matter if 3 is your original purpose, 1 is always your main solution. But 1 doesn't seem the key. Instead, 2 is the major way to solve the problem.
Because developing rural areas doesn’t necessarily reduce cities’ stress, without moving cities’ industries at the same time.
But even if you move cities’ industries alone, without developing rural areas, cities’ stress still would be reduced.