# is this expression awkward?

To look at the picture by dividing it into the part A and the Part B, You would understand the chart.

is this expression awkward? I can't search "To look at * by dividing" at google. if it's the right sentence, Why is not it searched?

It is incorrect English, and quite difficult to understand what you mean.

The second part "you would understand the chart" is a conditional expression, and correct grammar. The conditional expression should have an "if" clause or similar.

If you wore a coat, you would be warm.

If you knew French, you would understand the French songs.

You can't use a "to" infinitive.

So what you most likely mean is:

If you looked at the picture by dividing it into the part A and part B, you would understand the chart.

That is grammatically correct English, but "dividing" is not a method for "looking", so "look by dividing..." is odd. You could "look and divide"

If you looked at the picture and divided it into part A and part B, you would understand the chart.

But do you need to say "look"? Isn't it obvious that you need to look at something? I would just cut that part completely. I would also not use past tense "would" as we don't need a hypothetical situation.

If you divide the picture into parts A and B, you will understand the chart.

• Please explain "dividing" is not a method for "looking" in more detail. It is difficult to understand the concept because it is Korean. Commented May 7, 2019 at 12:30
• @sechuljang to look at essentially means to see (with ones eyes). I think you might be looking for an expression like to see X as (or to visualize X, to imagine X, to think of X as, etc.). "If you imagine the picture being divided into parts A & B, you will understand the chart." Commented May 7, 2019 at 14:06

If by expression, you are referring to only "to look at," then there's nothing wrong with that. However, "to look at by dividing" is certainly wrong.