Language desk
< December 12	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 14 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 13

Is statement correct ?

Does this sentence true?
"These vehicles have higher energy efficiency, no noise and pollution."
If not, what do you suggest instead?--Freshman404^Talk 15:57, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Where did you read it? What vehicles? --Jayron 32 16:41, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I might be mistaken, but I'm guessing Freshman404 isn't asking about the statement's truth value, but about whether it correctly conveys the intended meaning, i.e. that the vehicles are more energy-efficient while emitting neither noise nor pollution. The way the sentence is phrased now, it could mean that the vehicles have higher efficiency, have no noise, and have pollution. ---Sluzzelin talk 16:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added a title. StuRat (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you are talking about an all-electric car. As for the phrasing:

I would add "no" in front of "pollution", if you mean it emits no pollution. As is, it could be read either way.

Rather than "have" I would say they "create" no noise, pollution, etc.

"Higher" is a comparison term, so you need to define what it is higher than.

As for the truth:

Note that "energy efficiency" is tricky, as electrical cars may very well have lower total energy efficiency, if you count the energy lost creating the electricity, during transmission, and while stored in the battery. You could say lower gasoline/petrol usage, which is technically true, but still a bit misleading.

No noise seems wrong. Tires in motion create road noise and there's also wind noise. "No engine noise" would be closer to the truth.

"No pollution" is also wrong. For a completely electric car you can say "no tailpipe emissions", but there's still plenty of pollution created in building the car and producing the electricity.

So, combining all these, I get:

"These vehicles use no gasoline/petrol, have no tailpipe emissions, and create only minimal engine noise."

Note, however, that this is still misleading, as electrical cars aren't the panacea this sentence makes them appear to be.StuRat (talk) 16:59, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Electric vehicle warning sounds. Electric cars have noise added for the same reason that the domestic natural gas supply has smell added - to alert an unsuspecting public to its presence. Remember that many people do not have acute hearing. 2A02:C7F:BE2B:5600:60D9:9541:50EC:A0A (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The questioned sentence is "These vehicles have higher energy efficiency, no noise and pollution." When employing a negative, "and" should not be used, because it's inclusive of what follows and overrides the preceding "no". So the sentence is ambiguous because it literally means that the vehicle produces no noise but does produce pollution. There are two ways to retain the sentence construction while making the meaning clear - "These vehicles have higher energy efficiency, no noise and no pollution." - "These vehicles have higher energy efficiency, and no noise or pollution." Akld guy (talk) 21:50, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The "or" makes it sound like we might be talking about two vehicles, one with no noise, and one with no pollution. StuRat (talk) 03:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the context of "these vehicles", which implies a class of identical models, I don't think that's likely. However, it's a good point where a bunch of disparate items are being described; eg. "These trucks, buses and cars..." Akld guy (talk) 04:10, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how "these vehicles" implies a class of identical models. Compare "Consider wheelbarrows, bicycles, and horse buggies. These vehicles are all muscle-powered, but otherwise not identical at all". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:39, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]