0

Suppose that the performance of a system depends on the efficiency of two sub systems called A and B. And I want to say something along this line:

A can compensate the poor performance of B, but B can not compensate the poor performance of A.

I am wondering how I can simplify this sentence into a more compact one with omitting the unnecessary repetitive (redundant?) parts. I would say:

A can compensate the poor performance of B, but not true the other way around.

I am wondering if my sentence is correct and idiomatic? If so, is it good for an academic and sort of formal writing?

2
  • 'But not the other way round'. However the usual expression would be 'but not vice-versa'. dictionary.com/browse/vice-versa Feb 15 at 19:47
  • It is compensate for in English, in the sense you are using. A can compensate for *B's poor performance, but the inverse is not true.
    – Lambie
    Apr 1 at 15:18
0

Whereas A can compensate the poor performance of B, the opposite is not true.

or

A can compensate the poor performance of B, whereas B cannot reciprocate.

0

The most direct conversion is this:

A can compensate the poor performance of B, but B cannot that of A.

This combines two fairly basic concepts: removing a repeated verb (in this case, only the main verb but not the differing modals) in a parallel structure, and replacing a repeated noun with a pronoun.

The other suggestions are valid, and probably a bit easier to parse, but they don’t retain the exact same sense as this one does.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .