English Language & Usage Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for linguists, etymologists, and serious English language enthusiasts. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Is it correct to use of twice in the following sentence?

The problem of absence of remote facilities is addressed in the article...

What is the best way of writing this sentence?

share|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

While the sentence is correct, it's rather awkward.

Some options for improvement:

Absence of remote facilities is a problem, which is addressed in the article....

The problem that remote facilities are absent is addressed in the article....

The problem arising from the absence of remote facilities is addressed in the article....

Remote facilities are absent. The problem of such absence is addressed in the article....

Note that the above may be improvement over the original, but are not particularly elegant. Without knowing what follows "addressed in the article" and what "remote facilities" mean, I can't really do any better.

Also, active construction (something like "The article addresses the problem....") will probably improve clarity.

share|improve this answer

The sentence is grammatically correct. A better wording, though, would be

The lack of remote facilities is addressed in the article…

Lack is a kind of absence that is a deficiency, and is therefore a more appropriate word.

share|improve this answer
But lack isn't strictly the same thing as absence. In any case what's wrong with 'Problems arising from the absence of remote facilities are addressed in the article...' That would seem to be a less clumsy way of saying exactly what the OP said. After all it wasn't 'the absence of remote facilities' that was addressed, it was the associated problems that were addressed in the article. – WS2 Aug 24 '14 at 7:54
@WS2 While it is true that "lack" doesn't necessarily mean a complete absence, it should be clear enough that it implies that the deficiency is problematic. – 200_success Aug 24 '14 at 16:29

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.