0

I wrote an essay in which I focused on the differences between travelling by train and travelling by car. I was told I can't use the word 'also' like I did in the following sentence:

"A car is suitable for exploring a limited geographical region, whereas a train is also suitable for long-distance journeys."

I understand the word 'also' here to imply that, in addition to being suitable for exploring a limited geographical region, a train is also suitable for long-distance journeys. Am I wrong?

Edit: After reading some comments, I realise I should have included the previous sentence from my essay here to provide more context. I was talking about rental cars, not cars in general. The original passage, without any omissions, reads:

"Rental companies charge extra if one wants to return the car to a different location from the pick-up point. That means a car is more suitable for exploring a limited geographical region, whereas a train is also suitable for long-distance journeys."

  • To get that meaning you have to add some kind of only to the part about cars, as in a car is only really suitable for exploring a limited geographical region, whereas a train is also suitable for long-distance journeys. This is because whereas requires a contrast, and in your original sentence doesn't say - or even imply - that a car is not suitable for long-distance journeys. – user339660 May 18 at 16:03
  • 1
    @Minty I disagree. The first part of the sentence clearly says that cars are suitable for exploring a limited geographical region. That's already in contrast to long-distance journeys. The actual semantic difficulty is that cars are not only good for short journeys. They work quite well for long journeys too. In fact, both vehicles work for short and long journeys. So, while I think the sentence is fine syntactically, I don't agree with it. (But that's something else.) – Jason Bassford May 18 at 18:23
  • Well, we can probably agree that the edited version is fine. – user339660 May 18 at 19:38
  • Please, if you’re not a native speaker, you should post on English Language Learners. – David May 18 at 19:51
  • It might be a bit clearer with suitable also, to emphasize that also attaches to the usefulness rather than to the noun train. – Anton Sherwood May 20 at 1:18
2

'Also' in this sentenced is used as a comparison. You're saying that the train is also suited for long distance travelling however, you haven't stated that the car is suitable for long distance travelling and therefore, you have no comparison to your 'also' thus deeming the usage of also not effective. Additionally you use, 'whereas' which is used to say that something is either better or worse than the other thing which you have stated, this also contradicts your usage of whereas.

0

A statement "X is also Y" implies a statement "in addition to " a previous statement that states what X is or that something is Y.

So saying "The train is also good for long distance journeys" only works if you have previously stated either something else the train is good for, or something else that is good for long distance journeys.

You have not done either so you should not use "also".

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.