According to the American Heart Association, the average male has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order to significantly reduce the rate of heart disease.

A. has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order
B. has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently
C. have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than they do currently, in order
D. would have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order
E. would have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he is currently


POE -

prediction cant be present continuous tense - would require

A, B & C -eliminate

D & E -

E - .....he is currently what?

so my answer - D

According to the American Heart Association, the average male has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order to significantly reduce the rate of heart disease.

It should be A , would have can't be used here as they are mostly used for conditional statement / hypothetical situations .

Structure of B is "he does currently to reduce " .. changes the meaning

A. has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order
B. has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently
C. have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than they do currently, in order
D. would have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order
E. would have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he is currently

1. Why is "less" used instead of "fewer". Isn't the noun "trans-fats" countable?

2. Why is the usage of "has" is incorrect?

3. In option B, is there an error because in it just "to" is used instead of "in order to"?
_________________

These are some good questions, siddharthkapoor. I will respond in-line below.


No, trans-fats is not used in a countable way in the sentence above. You can count grams of trans-fats, but in the context of the sentence, we are simply being informed about a type of fat rather than a quantity. Think of the word as fat on its own: consume 20 percent less fat is appropriate; consume 20 percent fewer fat is not, unless we were to add a countable noun after our current noun, as in fat calories (thereby turning fat into an adjective).


The problem with has is that it does not touch upon the conditional if-then relationship that the latter two-thirds of the sentence shifts into. This is why you should pay attention to the non-underlined portion of the sentence as well as what you may need to fix. That is, in order to significantly reduce indicates a hypothetical outcome to the if condition presented in the middle portion: if the average male were to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently. Has to is more definitive, like the advice a doctor might give directly to a patient ("You have to... or else...").


No, to is simply a shortened version of in order to and serves in the same capacity. One is an adverb on its own, the other an adverbial phrase.

I hope that helps clarify your concerns. If you have further questions, feel free to ask. Good luck with your studies.

- Andrew

AndrewN, thank you so much for clearing my doubts. I appreciate your help.

In general, my concepts on making the choice between "less" and "fewer" are still not clear, even though I have read quite a few lessons on this subject. Could you please help me out?
_________________

Sure, siddharthkapoor. I could rehash the whole countable/uncountable point, but the truth is, the rules are not entirely consistent. I think you would benefit from reading this Grammar Girl article on the subject. If you have further questions after that, I would be glad to offer my thoughts.

Happy reading.

- Andrew

According to the American Heart Association, the average male has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order to significantly reduce the rate of heart disease.

A. has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order The sentence talks about a hypothetical situation of reducing the rate of heart disease and hence we need to use "would have to" rather than "has to". Eliminate.

B. has to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently Same error as (A). Eliminate.

C. have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than they do currently, in order Same error as (A) and (B). Additionally, usage of plural "have" for singular subject "male" is incorrect. Eliminate.

D. would have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he does currently, in order Correct answer.

E. would have to consume 20 percent less trans-fats than he is currently "he is" is incorrect, the correct usage is "he does" - the sentence is not in continuous tense. Eliminate.

Hope this helps.
_________________