A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is more numerous than one wolf for every 39 square miles.
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is GREATER than one wolf for every 39 square miles.
It would normally be appropriate to use ‘were’ instead if ‘is’ in combination with ‘would’. However, since the sentence starts off with ‘A wildlife expert predicts’ (present simple), Beeesneees’s suggested change (‘will’ rather than ‘would’) is a very good one.
[color=white].
By the way, your question needs some rewording as well. You could say something such as this instead: “I feel very uncomfortable using ‘is’ with 'would.”
[color=darkblue]_______________________________ [size=75]“Crying wolf is a real danger.” ~ David Attenborough[/size]
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota would/might fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is GREATER than one wolf for every 39 square miles.
Why “GREATER” in stead of “more numerous”?
Alan:
Could you please explain it to me?
My book Suggest–
A wildlife expert predicts that the reintroduction of the caribou into northern Minnesota will fail if the density of the timber wolf population in that region is greater than one wolf for every 39 square miles.
Alan:
What is your comment about my book’s suggestion?