less resources for

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "less resources for" is grammatically correct and can be used in written English.
It is typically used to describe a situation where there is a decreased amount of something available for a particular purpose or use. Example: "The budget cuts have resulted in less resources for our education system, leading to larger class sizes and fewer extracurricular activities."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

9 human-written examples

"We use less resources for more production," said Mohammed Jabbar, managing director of DBL.

The New York Times

"Programming for the well-heeled cognoscenti," Mr. Buchman said, "promotes the perception that there are less resources for new writers and new work, resulting in talent migrating away from stage to seek more accessible, gainful employment elsewhere".

The New York Times

This will consume less resources for WSNs.

EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking

It means less resources for helping the record number of refugees globally.

Huffington Post

You also have less resources for securing nuclear material from terrorists or converting to peaceful uses.

Huffington Post

For example, a possible confounding variable might be that women who are unable to evacuate from the path of a severe storm are more likely to be in a socioeconomic class that has less resources for prenatal medical care, and have increased exposures to other environmental risk factors such as pollution.

Huffington Post

Human-verified similar examples from authoritative sources

Similar Expressions

51 human-written examples

Compared to widely used Mutual Information (MI) based methods, the CR-based approaches require less resource for shadow histograms, a faster storage, such as the on-chip scratchpad memory, therefore can be fully exploited to achieve better performance.

Microprocessors and Microsystems

Allocating resources to one service means less left for other services; allocating resources to one patient means less resources available for others.

Critical Care

So there is less resources available for the Ebola outbreak.

Huffington Post

This is due to the fact that less resources are remaining for the SUEs as R min increases.

EURASIP Journal on Wireless Communications and Networking

For instance, several organizations facing uncertainty would build flexibility in the supply chain taking the form of buffer inventory, a larger supply base, or excess capacity (Sawhney, 2006) all of which requires more resources to implement or manage by the same token less resources are available for environmental management.

Asian Journal of Sustainability and Social Responsibility

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

When discussing budget allocations or strategic planning, use "less resources for" to clearly indicate areas where funding or support has been reduced.

Common error

Avoid using "less" when referring to countable items; use "fewer" instead. For example, it's correct to say "fewer staff members" rather than "less staff members".

Linguistic Context

The phrase "less resources for" functions as a prepositional phrase that modifies a noun or verb, indicating a decrease in the amount of available resources. It specifies the target or recipient of this reduction, aligning with Ludwig AI's assessment of its grammatical correctness.

Expression frequency: Common

Frequent in

Science

31%

News & Media

31%

Formal & Business

0%

Less common in

Academia

0%

Encyclopedias

0%

Social Media

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "less resources for" is a grammatically correct and commonly used expression indicating a reduction in available support or funding. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is suitable for various contexts, from news reporting to academic discussions. While it is generally appropriate, remembering to use "fewer" instead of "less" when discussing countable resources is crucial. The phrase appears frequently in scientific and news media sources, reflecting its relevance in discussing limitations and constraints across different sectors. The presence of credible examples reinforces its legitimacy and usefulness in formal communication.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

fewer resources for

Replaces "less" with "fewer", which is more appropriate when referring to countable items.

reduced resources for

Substitutes "less" with "reduced", emphasizing a decrease in the amount of resources.

scarcer resources for

Replaces "less" with "scarcer", highlighting the limited availability of resources.

diminished resources for

Uses "diminished" instead of "less", indicating a gradual decrease in resources.

limited resources for

Replaces "less" with "limited", focusing on the restricted nature of the resources.

inadequate resources for

Substitutes "less" with "inadequate", emphasizing that the resources are insufficient.

insufficient resources for

Similar to "inadequate", but slightly stronger in conveying the lack of resources.

a lack of resources for

Uses a different structure to convey the absence of sufficient resources.

a shortage of resources for

Highlights the deficiency in resources available.

constrained resources for

Emphasizes the restricted or limited nature of the resources.

FAQs

How can I use "less resources for" in a sentence?

You can use "less resources for" to indicate a reduction in available support or funding, such as, "The department now has "less resources for" research and development."

What is a synonym for "less resources for"?

A synonym for "less resources for" could be "fewer resources for", especially when talking about countable items. Other options include "reduced resources for" or "limited resources for".

Is it grammatically correct to say "less resources for"?

Yes, it's generally grammatically correct, especially when referring to resources in a general, non-countable sense. However, when referring to a specific number of countable resources, "fewer resources for" might be more appropriate.

What are some potential consequences of having "less resources for" a project?

Having "less resources for" a project could lead to delays, reduced scope, lower quality outputs, or the need to prioritize tasks differently.