How can one elucidate a speciously* threefold “correlative comparative” (complete) in written form?
What is the
most difficult law to understand?
As RegDwigu043dt points out…the chain
is not limited to just two items. How do you limit yourself to the true, real world?
What happens if there are three links in a chain?
What happens if the speaker (whose transcribed words I’m now translating) flips the first link for a sec, making an additional remark, before moving on to the second (and last) one?
What
is the easiest way for a layman to avoid a complex and difficult law?
Is there any way, by means of formulation or punctuation perhaps, to convey this nuance, without resorting to the utilization of conjunction and, which somehow seems to rob the sentence of some vague sense of rhythm?
Has omitted the keyword ‘its’ in the first link moved me or is this the real intent of the first link?
Compare my first sentence with this one:
The more complex a law is the more difficult it is to comprehend it, the easier it becomes for the experts to evade it.
Are there any additional tangible examples of a threefold comparative?
Isn’t complexity
more difficult than a fact to understand?
Is there anybody that can tell me where I am? For example is this ungrammatical?
What does it mean to be a Christian?
I think there are some formulations that can help make things more clear-er!
As you pointed
out, the more complex a law is, the more difficult it is to comprehend. “It is easier for experts to evade it”.
I think it is quite superfluous — if not tautological — to conjoin ( and ) complexity and difficulty. In terms of complexity, one dimension of difficulty is derived. The definition of difficulty does not presuppose complexity. Though complexity is inherent to something, don’t be concerned about it alone? Any one who
wrote that the more complex a law is, or the more difficult it is to comprehend, the easier it becomes for experts to evade it.
I hope help
helped you…what is the best way to tell the story?
