"It was reduced." vs "It was not reduced."

Question

"It was reduced." vs "It was not reduced."

The phrases 'it was reduced.' and 'it was not reduced.' are opposites of each other. 'It was reduced.' indicates that something was decreased in size, amount, or intensity, while 'it was not reduced.' indicates that something was not decreased. These phrases are not directly comparable as they convey opposite meanings.

Last Updated: March 21, 2024

This phrase is used to convey that something underwent a reduction in size, amount, or intensity. It is a simple past passive construction.

Examples:

The price of the product was reduced.
The swelling in my ankle was reduced after applying ice.
The number of employees was reduced due to budget cuts.
The speed limit was reduced to improve safety.
The amount of sugar in the recipe was reduced for a healthier option.

Alternatives:

It was decreased.
It was lowered.
It was diminished.
It was cut.
It was lessened.

This phrase is used to convey that something did not undergo a reduction in size, amount, or intensity. It is a simple past passive construction with a negation.

Examples:

The price of the product was not reduced.
The swelling in my ankle was not reduced despite the medication.
The number of employees was not reduced despite the rumors.
The speed limit was not reduced despite the accidents.
The amount of sugar in the recipe was not reduced as it was already low.

Alternatives:

It was not decreased.
It was not lowered.
It was not diminished.
It was not cut.
It was not lessened.

Answer 1

It was reduced.

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English to indicate that something was decreased in size, amount, or intensity.

Answer 2

It was not reduced.

This phrase is correct and commonly used in English to indicate that something was not decreased in size, amount, or intensity.

"It was reduced." vs "It was not reduced."

It was reduced.

It was not reduced.

Related Comparisons