0
Jack112 Posted 21 years ago
Grammar
Because
Is there a difference between these ones? Which one is better?
1. Logically, thinking you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you need the sales. (Is it supposed to be 'need' or 'needed' Or it doesn't really matter?)
2. Logically, thinking you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you needed the sales.
3. Logically, thinking you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you (would) need the sales. ((Is 'would' omitted here? Is this the same as #1?)
Thanks.
1. Logically, thinking you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you need the sales. (Is it supposed to be 'need' or 'needed' Or it doesn't really matter?)
2. Logically, thinking you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you needed the sales.
3. Logically, thinking you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you (would) need the sales. ((Is 'would' omitted here? Is this the same as #1?)
Thanks.
Top answer
None of the sentences make sense. They might make sense if the comma was after "thinking" but I'm not convinced that the sentence structure would be acceptable. If you omit the first two words, it's possible to make meaningful sentences: You would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you need the sales.
- None of the sentences make sense.
- They might make sense if the comma was after "thinking" but I'm not convinced that the sentence structure would be acceptable.
- If you omit the first two words, it's possible to make meaningful sentences: You would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you need the sales.
- You would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you needed the sales.
- You would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you would need the sales.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
3 Answers
0
None of the sentences make sense. They might make sense if the comma was after "thinking" but I'm not convinced that the sentence structure would be acceptable. If you omit the first two words, it's possible to make meaningful sentences:
You would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you need the sales.
You would not shorten the hours or shut the store d
You would not shorten the hours or shut the store down because you need the sales.
You would not shorten the hours or shut the store d
00
Sorry about that.
Here I have found the rest of the context:
Here I have found the rest of the context:
If you owned your own business or managed your own store, and the sales were terrible/not very good, what would you do to meet overhead? Cut hours of your employees, shut the store down completely, or shorten the hours of the store that day, week, or month? Payroll is the most flexible thing that is controllable; sal
00
The comma is misplaced in the original, Jack, and there are a couple of other anomalies-- perhaps poorly edited or written by a non-native speaker? It should read:
Logically thinking, you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down, because you need the sales.
The first two sentences of the passage are conditionals, but then the text turns to present indicativ
Logically thinking, you would not shorten the hours or shut the store down, because you need the sales.
The first two sentences of the passage are conditionals, but then the text turns to present indicativ
0
Related Questions