0

In the following sentence, is it redundant to say “prevent it in the future”? Deleting “in the future” strikes me as abrupt. Is there anything I could change it to that wouldn’t be redundant?

To avoid [this problem], companies need to understand its causes and develop a plan to prevent it in the future.

  • It is correct as it stands. – PephenKinD Aug 2 '17 at 18:04
  • 1
    'To avoid this problem, companies need to understand its causes and develop a plan to prevent it happening in the future / again.' – Edwin Ashworth Aug 2 '17 at 18:28
  • 2
    'In the future' sounds better / more idiomatic included here. It's not strictly necessary, but gives a feel of 'next year, say' rather than 'this afternoon'. – Edwin Ashworth Aug 2 '17 at 18:58
  • 1
    Another option would be to shift in the future forward. 'To avoid [this problem] in the future, companies [will] need to understand its causes and develop a prevention plan. – Phil Sweet Aug 2 '17 at 21:11
  • 1
    @PhilSweet - But isn't it redundant to shift "in the future" forward? – Hot Licks Aug 2 '17 at 21:40
-2

Yes it is redundant. However, as others have mentioned, it is fine as you have written it. The alternative, which is also correct, is:

To avoid [x], companies need to understand its causes and develop a plan to prevent it.

Just because something is redundant doesn't mean you can't say it. For example:

If you text while walking, you might trip and fall down. (Obviously you're not going to fall up, but this is acceptable.)

If you text while walking, you might trip and fall. (This is fine too.)

0

That sentence is correct as is. It may seem redundant, but it is much more natural sounding than omitting it.

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.