1

Here is the sentence:

If we all choose a personal or ceramic cup, we could save 40,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year.

Am I wrong to think that "choose" and "could save" are an incorrect pairing? I think it sounds better to use one of the following:

If we all choose ... we can save ...

If we all chose ... we could save ...

If we were to choose ... we could save ...

Community
  • 1
debbiesym
  • 1,044
  • 1
    Yes, I think your suggested options are better. – Kate Bunting Dec 03 '19 at 08:49
  • They mean different things. "If we all choose a personal or ceramic cup, we can save 40,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year" is stating a firm conviction that if we take the action, the savings must (realistically, are [very?] likely to), and certainly are enabled to, follow. // "If we all choose a personal or ceramic cup, we could save 40,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year" is saying "If we do A, B could possibly follow" It's not far from "If we all chose a personal or ceramic cup, we could save 40,000 pounds of CO2 emissions per year", but the latter sounds less hectoring. – Edwin Ashworth Dec 03 '19 at 19:03
  • Because a current action would bring future change, it seems best to use "if we choose, we could...." Also, it might be best to keep the person/people and cup/cups in agreement: "If everyone chooses a personal cup..." or "if we all choose personal cups..." And finally, rather than "save" emissions, I'd "eliminate" or "reduce" or "prevent" them. – user8356 Dec 03 '19 at 19:06
  • please see how many conditional sentence types are possible? – Arm the good guys in America Dec 04 '19 at 06:18

0 Answers0