For the use they’re intended (for), ...

[learningnotes]

I was writing (a) "For the use they're intended, these are perfect." But as I read the sentence again, I felt tempted to add another "for" to it (b): "For the use they're intended for, these are perfect."
Then thinking further, I was still not sure which one should be the correct one, so I tried looking up in Google: there seem equal number of either version. Can both be correct? Can someone here help settling my doubt?

Thanks!

 

[MikeNewYork]

I was writing (a) "For the use they're intended, these are perfect." But as I read the sentence again, I felt tempted to add another "for" to it (b): "For the use they're intended for, these are perfect."
Then thinking further, I was still not sure which one should be the correct one, so I tried looking up in Google: there seem equal number of either version. Can both be correct? Can someone here help settling my doubt?

Thanks!

I would simplify it as: "For their intended use(s), these are perfect."

 

[learningnotes]

Thank you, Mike, for the rephrasing. That is a good solution (if one wishes to avoid the question )

 

[MikeNewYork]

Thank you, Mike, for the rephrasing. That is a good solution (if one wishes to avoid the question )

Is an improvement evidence of avoidance? :-D

 

[Raymott]

Thank you, Mike, for the rephrasing. That is a good solution (if one wishes to avoid the question )

"They are perfect for the use they are intended for."
"They are perfect for employment in the use for which they were intended."
The meaning includes two 'fors'. They are intended for some use; and they are used for something. Things are not always employed for the thing that they were intended for.

 

[learningnotes]

Thanks you, everyone!

The meaning includes two 'fors'.

I agree. In fact, last night while I was sleeping, the following scheme came to my mind:

[For] + [him to succeed], ...
[For] + [the uses they're intended for], ...

So, in my example, one "for" is a component of the "For-structure", the other "for" is internal to the 2nd component of the "For-structure".
So the 2nd "for" is accidental and some people omit it because they consider it a repetition.

That is what I think, but I may be wrong