*A report that many apples contain a cancer-causing preservative called Alar apparently had little effect on consumers. **Few *consumers planned to change their apple-buying habits as a result of the report. Nonetheless,sales of apples in grocery stores fell sharply in March, a month after the report was issued.
I understand …
**Few = less
****Nonetheless = however.
**fell sharply = reduced
If I replace these here it becomes …
*A report that many apples contain a cancer-causing preservative called Alar apparently had little effect on consumers. **Less **consumers planned to change their apple-buying habits as a result of the report. However, sales of apples in grocery stores **reduced **in March, a month after the report was issued.
*
The word **However **seems does not fit here . because **however **is used when there is tone change…it does not change the tone . …second and third sentence almost refer the same.
So I feel However/**Nonetheless **is not a correct use in this English.
What you say ? Could you please help whether my understanding is correct ot not ? Am I missing something ?
As a native speaker of English, I can offer my opinions. “Few” and “Less” are very similar in meaning, which I discuss more below. “Nonetheless” in your context here I interpret as “just as important” or “all the same”. See for example http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nonetheless in its section “Related Words”. “fell sharply” means “decreased rapidly” or “decreased abruptly”. See for example http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sharply.
“few” is generally used for a “count noun”, a noun that represents a group of things that can be counted. “less” generally for a noun that represents a mass of something. For example see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fewer in its section “Usage Note”. Another example: “I started with a ream of paper, 500 sheets. I used some sheets, so now I have fewer than 500 sheets–less paper than before.”
However (if not nonetheless): I see a distinction between “less than 500 KD” and “fewer than 500 KD”. If something previously cost 500 KD and now costs 400 KD, it now costs less than 500 KD. And if I were collecting commemorative 1 KD bills and had accumulated 500 but sold 100 to another collector, I would now have 400 KD bills, fewer than 500 KD.
As for previously discussed items: I am with the group that agrees that “not unattractive” does not equal “attractive”, because the former term says only what some is “not”. As a more extreme example, If I say that today is not Sunday, I do not say which day of the week it is. But if I say that Shakira is not unattractive, I am thinking, “Oh, yeah…, I’m available, babe!” However if I tell her that I am “probably available”, I do not say (explicitly or otherwise) that I am available. If Zuria Vega or Xisca wants me now for the next year or so, I will say, “Hasta luego Shakira.”
BTW themajestic, thanks very much for posting your questions (and more so for posting them in one combined thread). Your questions make me think more about how we use English and how we can express ourselves better. Maybe someday soon I’ll feel confident enough to ask Shakira out.
Thanks for the posts . I appreciate your post . But I’m unable to get to the point . It seems to me that use of “However” is faulty here ?
Ok, before that. Could you please clear up this. I think I’m confusing at this part .
report says apple has cancer-causing preservative = >what is consequences of this ?
(1) if you eat more apple , you’ll get cancer soon
(2)if you eat more apple , you’ll NOT get cancer
use of “however” depends on the above . sale will drop if people are panicked .
You are wanting to know why “nonetheless” and “however” are okay in this sentence. You don’t see a tone change.
Sentence #1: A report that many apples contain a cancer-causing preservative called Alar apparently had little effect on consumers.
(This sentence will later make more sense if the writer had added the words at first at the end.)
Sentence #2: Few consumers planned to change their apple-buying habits as a result of the report.
(People in this place usually bought a certain amount of apples and even after they heard that apples might have something on them that caused cancer, they indicated that they would continue to buy the same amount of apples as they always had. We don’t know how the writer knew this. Maybe she or he did a poll. Anyway, people said that they didn’t plan to change their apple-buying habits.)
BUT, contrary to what they had planned to do, here is what really happened:
Sentence #3: Nonetheless, sales of apples in grocery stores fell sharply in March, a month after the report was issued.
(People did change their apple-buying habits by a month later. They didn’t think that they would change their habits, but they stopped buying as many. That is the change in tone from sentence #2 and sentence #3.
It’s the same change as in:
Sentence #1: She found out the man she was to marry was very mean to animals.
Sentence #2: She thought that she would marry him anyway.
Sentence #3: However, a month later she called off the wedding.
I hope that this is helpful. Thank you for redirecting my attention to your real question. If it is still not clear, try asking your question again in different words.
Thanks …that was charming and detailed explanation …I’m very much comfortable now.
By the way , If I assume “preservative” = chemical , will that be ok here ?
I’m comfortable with this …
A report that many apples contain a cancer-causing chemical called Alar …blah blah
I think this replacement wont harm the paragraph
you know why I put chemical there ? I had a hesitation that preservatives are used so that item don’t get rotton …i.e for goodwill purpose… Those are external preservatives though .
But here apple itself contains preservatives . So, I would like to rename it to harmful chemical here for my comfortability…I think this wont harm the para.
It wouldn’t be wrong, but it would be less informative. As a general rule of thumb, terms that give the reader more information are preferred; in this case, saying Alar is a “preservative” gives the reader more information than saying it’s a “chemical.”
Nonetheless, that’s a style argument, not a grammar argument, and there’s nothing grammatically wrong with substituting “chemical” for “preservative” if you feel “chemical” is more informative or accurate.
Everything is a chemical. Water is a chemical. Fats, carbohydrates, and proteins are chemicals. Preservatives and every other item added to processed foods are chemicals.
The problem is that the word chemical has taken on a meaning of “bad.” When people talk about chemicals being added to foods, they generally mean that harmful ingredients have been added. That’s foolish. Preservatives are usually good things to add to food. I say “usually” because it may be the case that a very small number of preservatives prove to be harmful.
But the vast majority of the time, people want preservatives in their food. Food that doesn’t spoil quickly is a good thing. You want to explain why this particular preservative was thought to be bad. The answer is not “because it was a chemical.”
I just need to add that very little is known about the true dangers of Alar. No cancers were ever linked directly to it. The scare existed because there was an estimate that over the long-term a small number of people who ate apples every day might develop cancer. It is technically true that alar is cancer-causing because it was shown to do that in laboratory tests. (Even more technically, a breakdown byproduct was shown to cause cancer.) Everything else was scare science.
Um… You know that in both of those instances you can count the amount of coffee, right? Although your use is accurate, if you can’t count something then you can’t know if you’ve had more or less of it (since you don’t know how much you had in the first place).
In your example, either “nonetheless” or “however” is fine. They are very close in meaning, and, in fact, I cannot think of any context where “nonetheless” could not perfectly well be replaced by “however.” There are probably a few contexts, however, where “nonetheless” would be awkward as a replacement for “however” - this very sentence being an example. If in doubt, use “however.” It is much the more commonly used word.
Subscriptions to cable television are a bargain in comparison to “free” television.
Remember that “free” television is not really free. It is consumers, in the end, who pay for the costly advertising that supports “free” television.
I have doubt here …
It is consumers, in the end, who pay for the costly advertising that supports “free” television
how come consumers paying costly advertising ? How come that supports “free” television ?
Could you please explain this part ?
I have a guess here though . I’m not sure but a wild guess . I guess that whatever the products are advertised in the TV , free television consumers purchase them and the revenue goes to support running the free television.
If my guess is correct , is not the consumers of cable television also doing the same thing ?
So, whether you view free television channel BBC or paid channel STAR Movies , both viewers/consumers purchase the costly advertised products and the money goes to run the channel. So, purchase of costly advertised products can not make TV free or Cable subscription…So, I don’t believe this argument.
I don’t know what the situation is in the UK, but in America there are three types of stations.
Regular broadcast television, the networks, is free to anybody who has a television antenna. Networks and the local affiliates who carry network programs make their money by selling commercial time to advertisers. Consumers therefore pay for the programs indirectly.
Cable television divides into two types of channels. (They often carry the “free” networks as well, but let’s ignore them.) Basic cable is included in the price of a cable subscription. These channels usually also carry advertising. Getting a channel included in the limited number of slots that cable providers have available is difficult. Channels often have to pay the cable provider to run them. Commercials are necessary to get that money back. Part direct and part indirect.
Premium channels are those that charge a subscription fee in addition to the monthly cable subscription fee. These channels do not carry commercials. They have to make their money from the subscription fees. These channels charge the consumer directly.
It sounds like the channels you’re familiar with are similar in concept. Advertising is the traditional method by which newspapers and magazines also make their money. Direct subscriptions - at least here in America - supply only a small fraction of the costs needed to run them. Some cable channels work the same way.
did you also noticed the usage of** ’ costly advertising '** . Whats that ? is it the product that is advertised is costly OR the get up and set up of the advertisement is costly ?
The idea that they’re trying to communicate is that it is costly to advertise. It’s costly to create the ad, and it’s costly to buy air time on television stations to have the ad aired. The writer is then implying that the consumer pays the cost of that advertising, because the advertiser will have to charge a higher price for the product being advertised, in order to pay for the advertising.
