Author Topic: scope of/for revision  (Read 162 times)

Offline Cindy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
scope of/for revision
« on: September 12, 2017, 08:33:05 am »
Dear friends,

Do you say 'scope of revision' or 'scope for revision'? My teachers used to use 'scope of revision' but my boss now is using 'scope for revision'. Please suggest if they are both ok or one is wrong and let me know the reason.

Thanks in advance!

Cindy

Offline Darryl

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • Far North Queensland, Australia
Re: scope of/for revision
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2017, 09:54:44 am »
I would say 'scope of' but I guess it depends on the intended meaning. Could you show how it would be used in a sentence??

Offline admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
  • Director at Lydbury English Centre Ltd
    • Lydbury English Centre Ltd
Re: scope of/for revision
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2017, 10:38:15 am »
Both are possible

Scope of revision = the scale of change that has been decided upon
Scope for revision = there is room for changes
Best wishes,

Duncan Baker
http://www.lydbury.co.uk

Offline Cindy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 100
Re: scope of/for revision
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2017, 04:30:33 am »
Thanks Darryl and Duncan!

It is used to put on the topic line of a piece of revision paper for students. Is it fine to use it either way? Duncan's answers seem don't match what I mean in this case. Please advise.

Cindy
« Last Edit: September 13, 2017, 07:47:38 am by Cindy »

Offline admin

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2426
  • Director at Lydbury English Centre Ltd
    • Lydbury English Centre Ltd
Re: scope of/for revision
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2017, 09:22:00 am »
I would say for in this situation
Best wishes,

Duncan Baker
http://www.lydbury.co.uk

Offline Darryl

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2355
  • Far North Queensland, Australia
Re: scope of/for revision
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2017, 01:25:29 pm »
Yes, probably 'for' in that context.