would be devastating

USAGE SUMMARY

The phrase "would be devastating" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used to express the potential negative impact or consequences of a situation or event. Example: "If the project fails, it would be devastating for the entire team."

✓ Grammatically correct

News & Media

Science

Formal & Business

Human-verified examples from authoritative sources

Exact Expressions

59 human-written examples

That would be devastating.

The Economist

Heavy losses would be devastating.

The Economist

Failure would be devastating.

The New York Times

Either would be devastating.

The New York Times

"Any such attacks would be devastating".

The New York Times

The consequences of both would be devastating.

The New York Times

It would be devastating for our business".

The New York Times

That would be devastating for these children.

The New York Times

This price increase would be devastating".

The Guardian - Business

That would be devastating to the team".

The New York Times - Sports

Any long-term loss of Cano would be devastating.

The New York Times - Sports

Expert writing Tips

Best practice

Consider the audience and context when using "would be devastating". It's a strong phrase, so ensure it aligns with the overall tone and intended impact of your writing.

Common error

Avoid using "would be devastating" for trivial or minor inconveniences. This dilutes the impact and reduces its effectiveness for truly serious situations.

Linguistic Context

The phrase "would be devastating" functions primarily as a predicate adjective, describing the severity of a potential outcome or consequence. As Ludwig AI confirms, the phrase is used to highlight the potential for significant negative impact. Examples include scenarios ranging from business losses to the consequences of political decisions.

Expression frequency: Very common

Frequent in

News & Media

80%

Formal & Business

10%

Science

5%

Less common in

Encyclopedias

0%

Wiki

0%

Reference

0%

Ludwig's WRAP-UP

In summary, the phrase "would be devastating" is a powerful way to emphasize the potential for severe negative consequences. As Ludwig AI confirms, it is grammatically correct and frequently used, particularly in news and media contexts. Its communicative purpose is to highlight the gravity of a situation, warning of potential harm or persuading others to take action. When writing, use this phrase judiciously to maintain its impact and avoid overstatement. Consider alternatives like "would be catastrophic" or "would be ruinous" to fine-tune the message's tone.

More alternative expressions

Phrases that express similar concepts, ordered by semantic similarity:

would be catastrophic

Emphasizes a sudden and widespread disaster or failure, implying immediate and overwhelming negative effects.

would be ruinous

Suggests long-term damage or destruction, particularly in a financial or structural sense.

would be crippling

Highlights the disabling or weakening effect of something, indicating a significant reduction in capability or function.

would be calamitous

Implies a tragic and disastrous event, often with widespread suffering and loss.

would be profoundly damaging

Emphasizes the depth and significance of the harm caused, suggesting lasting repercussions.

would be utterly destructive

Stresses the complete and thorough nature of the devastation, leaving little or nothing intact.

would spell disaster

Indicates a certain and inevitable negative outcome, often implying a turning point for the worse.

would have dire consequences

Focuses on the severe and urgent nature of the resulting effects, implying a critical situation.

would be gravely detrimental

Highlights the serious and harmful nature of something, emphasizing the negative impact on well-being or progress.

would be exceedingly harmful

Underlines the excessive and considerable degree of damage that would result, suggesting a particularly negative outcome.

FAQs

How can I use "would be devastating" in a sentence?

You can use "would be devastating" to describe the potential negative impact of an event or decision. For example, "Losing our biggest client "would be devastating" for our business".

What are some alternatives to "would be devastating"?

Some alternatives include "would be catastrophic", "would be ruinous", or "would be crippling", depending on the specific nuance you want to convey.

Which is correct, "would be devastating" or "will be devastating"?

"Would be devastating" implies a hypothetical or conditional situation, while "will be devastating" suggests a future certainty. Choose the option that best reflects the likelihood and context of the situation.

What's the difference between "would be devastating" and "could be devastating"?

"Would be devastating" suggests a higher probability or certainty of the negative outcome if a certain condition is met. "Could be devastating" implies a possibility, but not necessarily a certainty, of a devastating result.