grammatically correct or not?

Hi, Hope,

All three sentences are grammatically correct and very well written.

@hope posted:

As we departed, I noticed that a white pickup truck that had been last in the queue when we arrived was still four or five cars back from collecting its food (1) (is this sentence grammatically correct? What does it mean?) [...]

When analysing sentence (1)- I noticed that a white pickup truck that had been last in the queue when we arrived was still four or five cars back from collecting its food), I see that

a white pickup truck was still four or five cars back from collecting its food: main clause (the meaning seems weird to me)

that had been last in the queue when we arrived: subordinate clause

"I noticed" is followed by a content clause starting with "that." Within the "that"-clause, the main clause is:

A white pickup truck was still four or five cars back from collecting its food. (This means that the truck was still waiting. If the driver had parked and gone in to order, they would probably have eaten and left earlier than the narrator.)

"That had been last in the queue when we arrived" is a relative clause modifying "truck," and "when we arrived" is an adverbial clause of time inside the relative.

@hope posted:

Americans have become so attached to the idea of convenience that they will put up with almost any inconvenience to achieve it (2). (What does ‘put up with’ mean in this context? What does the whole sentence mean?).

"Put up with" here means, as in any other context, "tolerate." The concept is that Americans will tolerate any inconvenience to prioritize convenience. This is ironic, because in the case at issue the convenience of staying in the car and buying through the window turned out to be inconvenient.

@hope posted:

The things that are supposed to speed up and simplify our lives more often than not have the opposite effect (3) (is this sentence grammatically correct? What does the whole sentence mean?) [...]

When analysing sentence (3) -The things that are supposed to speed up and simplify our lives more often than not have the opposite effect ), I think that the main clause lacks a main verb.

The main verb is "have": things that should simplify our lives often have the opposite effect, i.e. they complicate our existence.

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation, Gustavo. In sentence 3,  I grouped  'not' and 'have', so I thought that 'not have' is wrong. Based on your explanation, I understand that

The things that are supposed to speed up and simplify our lives more often than not means The things that are supposed to speed up and simplify our lives more often than the things that are NOT supposed to ............ (Am I right?)

I have one more question.

The following extract is taken from a text which is about the influence of advertising on children.

Parents also admit they are inconsistent, even hypocritical, in their responses to their children's purchasing requests. Mike, father of a son of seven and a daughter of three, says, 'We refuse to buy him the sweets he wants on the grounds that it's bad for him while we are busy loading the trolley with double cream and chocolate for ourselves. It's enjoyable to buy nice things, and it's quite reasonable that children should want to share that, I suppose. But I still find myself being irritated by their demands. It partly depends on how I feel. If I'm feeling generous and things are going well in my life, I'm more likely to say yes. It's hard to be consistent.'

Supermarkets themselves could do a lot more to ease parent-child conflict by removing sweets from checkout areas or even by providing supervised play areas. Although parents might spend less because their children are not with them, the thought of shopping without your six-year-old's demands would surely attract enough extra customers to more than make up the difference.

In the highlighted sentence,

the thought of shopping without your six-year-old's demands: subject of the clause

would surely attract: main verb of the clause

What is the subject of 'make up'? Would you mind rewriting it?

Thank you very much

@hope posted:

Thank you very much for your detailed explanation, Gustavo. In sentence 3,  I grouped  'not' and 'have', so I thought that 'not have' is wrong. Based on your explanation, I understand that

The things that are supposed to speed up and simplify our lives more often than not means The things that are supposed to speed up and simplify our lives more often than the things that are NOT supposed to ............ (Am I right?)

No. "More often than not" is an expression that means "more often than not often" (more frequently than infrequently).

@hope posted:

Supermarkets themselves could do a lot more to ease parent-child conflict by removing sweets from checkout areas or even by providing supervised play areas. Although parents might spend less because their children are not with them, the thought of shopping without your six-year-old's demands would surely attract enough extra customers to more than make up the difference.

In the highlighted sentence,

the thought of shopping without your six-year-old's demands: subject of the clause

would surely attract: main verb of the clause

What is the subject of 'make up'? Would you mind rewriting it?

The subject is "the thought of shopping without your six-year-olds." "Make up" means "compensate." What the text says is that parents would spend less if their children are not around, but the possibility of buying at ease would attract more adult customers and this would end up resulting in more profit for the supermarkets: parents spend less without their children, but more customers spend more money.

Thank you very much for your quick reply. (Honestly, a student asked me about the sentence below, so I want to ask you in detail so that I can explain it to her)

Although parents might spend less because their children are not with them, the thought of shopping without your six-year-old's demands would surely attract enough extra customers to more than make up the difference.

Drawing on the context and previous sentences, I can work out the intended meaning of the above sentence. However, the structure is tricky to me as a non-native speaker.

Is 'more' in this clause  a comparative form of 'much' or does it mean 'more customers'? Is 'to' a preposition? What's the purpose/function of using 'to' in the highlighted clause?

Again, many thanks for your help ♥♥♥

@hope posted:

Although parents might spend less because their children are not with them, the thought of shopping without your six-year-old's demands would surely attract enough extra customers to more than make up the difference.

Drawing on the context and previous sentences, I can work out the intended meaning of the above sentence. However, the structure is tricky to me as a non-native speaker.

Is 'more' in this clause  a comparative form of 'much' or does it mean 'more customers'? Is 'to' a preposition? What's the purpose/function of using 'to' in the highlighted clause?

The phrase is "more than make up the difference." The idea is that the difference will be compensated for not narrowly but by a large margin. "to" introduces an adverbial of result: so many extra customers will be attracted that the reduction in spending will be offset by the increase in purchases.

Many thanks, Gustavo