2

Pupils at the primary education level are less violent and are hard workers.

Do we need "are" and what is the natural thing to do?

  • “pupils in primary school” is more natural than “pupils at the primary education level”. – Lambie Jul 12 at 16:23
3

As the sentence stands, you need the second are in there for 2 reasons.

  1. The mix of adjective (violent) and noun (worker) without the second are sounds awkward (to me at least)
  2. Without the second are it could be construed that they are less hard workers

Having two are's in close proximity might seem a little clumsy though. (could just be me).

To fix this I would suggest a more natural sounding way to say this would be to switch them around:

Pupils at the primary education level are harder working and less violent.

0

Either is acceptable, but if you repeat the verb, it will be less confusing.

With the repeated verb, it is clear that you mean to say that the pupils [are less violent (in general)] and [are hard workers].

Without the repeated verb, it could also be (mis)understood that you mean to say that the pupils are [less violent workers] and [hard workers], or even that the pupils are [less violent workers] and [less hard (diligent) workers].

  • Do you mean "less hard workers" in the second example of the second paragraph? – Costa Jul 12 at 14:14
  • You know, that's a third way it could be understood. I'll edit. – Davo Jul 12 at 17:17

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.