The loss and wastage of food

[marco_on_the_grassland]

Hello.
The image attached below is from one of the entrance exam questions in English from a university in Japan. I understand that "loss and wastage (of food)"can be singular or plural depending on the concept held by the speaker (author). For example, in the following sentence, it is treated as singular:
"The loss and wastage of food has been a global issue." which is like: "Ten miles is a long distance for kids."
This is because, in this case, "loss and wastage of food" is a single thing as a whole. However, even if I look at the picture in the attached image, and from the whole, "I" think that "loss and wastage" should be treated as plural in this case. What do you think?

 

[jutfrank]

Like the writer, I think it should be treated as a single thing. Loss and wastage are essentially the same thing, economically speaking.

 

[marco_on_the_grassland]

Like the writer, I think it should be treated as a single thing. Loss and wastage are essentially the same thing, economically speaking.

In that case, why do you think the "author" is distinguishing between "loss” and "waste" in this issue (i.e., in the picture and the "2" questions (1) & (2))?

 

[jutfrank]

It's a technical difference, so there are two different terms. But still, the two terms essentially amount to the same thing so it's more than reasonable to treat them as one thing. They go together in that they both lead to an economic loss.

Remember that this isn't actually authentic language. It's just an exam task, so it doesn't really matter. The writer could easily have used the singular agreement 'take' instead, if they were thinking that loss and wastage were two distinct things and no one would object.

 

[marco_on_the_grassland]

It's a technical difference, so there are two different terms. But still, the two terms essentially amount to the same thing so it's more than reasonable to treat them as one thing. They go together in that they both lead to an economic loss.

Remember that this isn't actually authentic language. It's just an exam task, so it doesn't really matter. The writer could easily have used the singular agreement 'take' instead, if they were thinking that loss and wastage were two distinct things and no one would object.

Hmm. I must say, I can’t agree. You argue that "loss" and "waste" essentially mean the same thing, but what if they were two completely different (in the meaning) words? That's what I think, though I don't think of a good example right away...

Moreover, while I agree that this is just a test question and those who solve it wouldn't particularly care or be misled, I'm not asking because I know it's an exam question and I'm not thinking about whether it's treated as singular or plural, or whether test-takers would be confused depending on which one they choose.

 

[5jj]

But still, the two terms essentially amount to the same thing so it's more than reasonable to treat them as one thing. They go together in that they both lead to an economic loss.

The figure and the words below suggest that the writer of the exercise considers them as two different things.

 

[marco_on_the_grassland]

The figure and the words below suggest that the writer of the exercise considers them as two different things.

Yes. The part I was also concerned about from the beginning is that, and I think the argument that "loss and waste have similar meanings" is slightly off.

 

[jutfrank]

The figure and the words below suggest that the writer of the exercise considers them as two different things.

Well, I agree the words below the figure suggest two things, but the figure itself suggests to me the writer considers them as one thing. The fact that the writer used a singular agreement verb to label the figure is the best evidence that he/she was thinking of them as one compound thing, at least when they were writing that particular sentence.

 

[jutfrank]

You argue that "loss" and "waste" essentially mean the same thing, but what if they were two completely different (in the meaning) words?

If they were two words with completely different meanings, I suppose it would be less likely that they would go together, but I don't think that's really important, generally speaking.

The main idea is that two things, however similar or different they may be, can be classed together as a compound subject, for whatever purpose the speaker has. I don't know much about the study of supply chains systems, but it seems reasonable to me to put loss and wastage together. They both describe when food goes missing from the system.

... and I'm not thinking about whether it's treated as singular or plural

So what are you asking? You said you think they "should be treated as plural in this case", without saying why, and then asked us what we think.

Can you tell us why you think they should be treated as plural?

 

[marco_on_the_grassland]

Well, I agree the words below the figure suggest two things, but the figure itself suggests to me the writer considers them as one thing. The fact that the writer used a singular agreement verb to label the figure is the best evidence that he/she was thinking of them as one compound thing, at least when they were writing that particular sentence.

I cannot agree with the argument of "starting with the writer’s intention." This is because this university has made mistakes* in the English exams of the previous year and the year before last (not just typos or similar errors), which leads me to question the thoughtfulness of the examiners. *Such mistakes are highly unusual in Japanese universities.

 

[marco_on_the_grassland]

Let me put it more succinctly, more specifically. I believe this is a grammatical error brought about by the lack of thoughtfulness of the questioner (or writer). In other words, I think they were unable to express what they wanted to say due to a grammatical mistake. However, I believe it didn't become an issue because there was no one among the examinees who had more grammatical knowledge than him (or her).

 

[jutfrank]

I cannot agree with the argument of "starting with the writer’s intention." This is because this university has made mistakes* in the English exams of the previous year and the year before last (not just typos or similar errors), which leads me to question the thoughtfulness of the examiners. *Such mistakes are highly unusual in Japanese universities.

I understand what you mean, yes. You're saying that it may be an error, I think. But isn't starting with the writer's intention the only place to start? I mean, how are you ever going to know whether he or she really meant to say 'take' instead of 'takes'? How would you be able to get inside the writer's mind?

I believe this is a grammatical error brought about by the lack of thoughtfulness of the questioner (or writer).

Yes, that's clear, but what justifications do you have for this belief? Or do you mean it's just a suspicion? On what grounds?

My feeling here is contrary to yours. I think the writer meant to say 'takes' because he was thinking of a singular compound subject. I can't provide evidence for this. My feeling comes purely from the fact that I probably would have done the same.

However, I believe it didn't become an issue because there was no one among the examinees who had more grammatical knowledge than him (or her).

I see. Well, it isn't a question of grammar since both 'take' and 'takes' are perfectly and equally grammatical. It's a question of interpretation—whether there is one thing or two.