1

I sometimes come across "remove the presence of", e.g. "remove the presence of these compounds". You can try a Google search for the exact phrase "remove the presence of" (with quotes) and you can see for yourself. It seems to be used in reference to chemical substances.

It seems redundant. Is this proper? Does in mean anything different than simply "remove X"? Or, maybe it's just a chemist's way of saying things?

Improve this question
3
  • I can't see any meaningful difference between "remove X" and "remove the presence of X." I've also found the phrase in Christian theology. Seems likely that these chemists and theologians are repeating what they've read.
    – Juhasz
    Commented Dec 3, 2019 at 17:30
  • In an experiment where the presence of X had an undesired effect it is logical to want to eliminate the presence of X. Using that wording keeps it symmetric.
    – Jim
    Commented Dec 4, 2019 at 5:51
  • Would you consider blood stains to be the "presence" of someone, even though the person themself is not actually present?
    – Jason Bassford
    Commented Dec 13, 2019 at 5:12

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-2

Remove infers the presence of, such that Remove the presence of X adds no information to Remove X. Redundant, verbose—take your pick.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .