For versus of

Question

Dear teachers...Could you shed some light on this?Which one is correct?The procedure to obtain/get the efficiency of the first step of the first process was unclear.The procedure to obtain/get the efficiency for the first step of the first process was unclear.Would it be OK if I had said 'for obtaining/getting' at the beginning?Many thanks.

Mister Micawber · Accepted Answer

This is acceptable:

The procedure for making / to make the first step of the first process efficient was unclear.

Your sentences are very awkward.

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Could you shed some light on this?

Which one is correct?

The procedure to obtain/get the efficiency of the first step of the first process was unclear.

The procedure to obtain/get the efficiency for the first step of the first process was unclear.

Would it be OK if I had said 'for obtaining/getting' at the beginning?

Both sentences are wholely awkward and unnatural.

I suggest this.

The way to make the first step of the first process efficient was unclear.

Or simply this.

The way to make the process efficient was unclear.

Clive

Offroad · Answer

What I am trying to say is:

The way (or procedure) of calculating/measuring/obtaining the efficiency of the first step of the first process was not clear.

Is it still odd?

Many thanks

Mister Micawber · Answer

Ah! Much better.

The procedure/method for calculating/measuring the efficiency of the first step of the first process was not clear.

But what do you mean by 'clear'?

Offroad · Answer

by 'clear' I meant 'easy understandable'.

The procedure of calculating the effiency of the first step of the first process was not understandable'.

However, the sentences still buggs me, I can't understand why it could not be 'for' instead of 'of'.

Many thanks

Mister Micawber · Answer

We are trying to help you write a good sentence. There are many options for casting it. You may use 'for' if you wish. The sentence has worse problems: 'the first step of the first process' is inherently awkward. You have step, process, and procedure all in the same sentence-- and they all have the same meaning.

Offroad · Answer

Thank you very much for your kindness, every help is deeply appreciated.

To me, 'procedure', 'step' and 'process' may have different meanings. 'step' to me, is a stage in a process.
The process can have many stages, for each of them, one may calculate the efficiency/effectiveness.

How about this one:?

The way of calculating the efficiency of the first stage of the process was not easily understandable.

each stage of the process, or system, if you will, may have, still, sub-stages, therefore, I believe it is OK to say:

The efficiency calculated for the first stage of the first sub-process was too low.

Thank you very much

Clive · Answer

Hi,

It might help if we understood what kind of process you are talking about. Can you offer an example, please?

eg are you building a space-ship?

eg are you conducting a chemical experiment?

eg are you trying to achieve some political goal?

eg are you painting a house?

Clive

Offroad · Answer

Yes, of course. This is about a set of two reactions, each of them has 2 stages.

This is the original text:

The procedure to obtain the kinetic constants of the 1st step of the 2nd reaction was performed using the experimental values of CH4 concentration as a function of time and constructing the straight lines of log(Ca/Cb) versus time for the intervals corresponding to the 1st step of the 2nd reaction at temperatures of 1148, 1173 e 1223 K, thus obtaining the respective kinetic constants from their slopes.

This is how I suggest it should've been written:

The procedure to find/determine the kinetic constants Kd of the first stage of the second reaction was performed plotting experimental data (CH4) against calculated values, where the model was log(Ca/Cb) versus t. The procedure was done for 3 temperatures, therefore, 3 values of Kd were found.

Thanks for your help!

Clive · Answer

Hi,

Yes, of course. This is about a set of two reactions, each of them has 2 stages.

This is the original text:

The procedure to obtain the kinetic constants of the 1st step of the 2nd reaction was performed using the experimental values of CH4 concentration as a function of time and constructing the straight lines of log(Ca/Cb) versus time for the intervals corresponding to the 1st step of the 2nd reaction at temperatures of 1148, 1173 e 1223 K, thus obtaining the respective kinetic constants from their slopes.

This is how I suggest it should've been written:

The procedure to find/determine the kinetic constants Kd of the first stage of the second reaction was performed plotting experimental data (CH4) against calculated values, where the model was log(Ca/Cb) versus t. The procedure was done for 3 temperatures, therefore, 3 values of Kd were found.

Here are a few suggested edits based on your version.

The procedure to find/determine the kinetic constants Kd of ('for' sounds better to me, but I don't really understand the process) the first stage of the second reaction was performed (by?) plotting experimental data (CH4) against calculated values, where the model was log(Ca/Cb) versus t. The procedure was done for 3 temperatures, and therefore 3 values of Kd were found.

This is highly technical stuff, so my feeling is that you are the best judge of whether your readers will understand it.

Clive

For versus of

Top answer

Get the Weekly English Kit 📬

Related Questions