I suppose the following is, strictly speaking, incorrect (even though versions thereof are often seen)

"The barrier is eliminated (in order) to enhance performance",

as this would imply that the barrier will, somehow, enhance performance, rather than its elimination. Possible corrections:

"The barrier is eliminated so that/in order that performance (may) be enhanced"

"We eliminate the barrier to enhance performance"

Am I correct, or is it a pedantic question?

Same issue here: "The method is proposed to estimate...", as a method cannot "estimate" anything.

  • An estimate can certainly be obtained by using a method.
    – J.R.
    Apr 1 '17 at 10:30
  • So, these expressions are acceptable? The (implied) subject of "estimate" should be "the method". Or not? Apr 1 '17 at 10:38
  • 1
    "The barrier is eliminated (in order) to enhance performance" does not imply any such meaning as the barrier will enhance performance. This is a passive sentence and the barrier is subjected to the elimination; not the barrier eliminates or enhances. In other words, the barrier hinders the performance. so, its elimination will enhance the performance. Apr 1 '17 at 11:07
  • 3
    This is a common situation in English called an "attachment ambiguity"; it is legitimately ambiguous, for reasons explained here. Apr 1 '17 at 14:53

It is understood that the act of eliminating the barrier enhances performance, not implies.

The next sentence is wordy. A learned user of English would prefer the first sentence over the second.

The third sentence is the same as the first, only it is no longer passive.

Your last fragment asks a different question.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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