The health benefits of tea have been the subject of much res

[Sage Pearce-Higgins]

I can't think of any significant difference between 'in addition to' and 'besides'. I'd say that it's just a red herring. Take a look here: https://www.lexico.com/definition/besides

[JbhB682]

Then you've got a problem with consistency. (The issue is similar to parallelism, although it's not an issue of grammatical parallelism.)

The structure of the sentence is "In addition to X, Y". This structure implies that X and Y are two observations of the same kind.

Here, "Y" says that the brewed leaves do xxxxx. So, for "in addition to" to make sense, "X" should be another statement about the brewed leaves. Not about something else (= the tea itself).

Hi Experts - I too thought "its" in the sentence can refer back to "TEA" in 1st clause.

Per above post - it may be gramatically possible but from a meaning perspective, ITS = Tea would not make sense in the context of the idiom : In addition to X,Y

Could you explain why perhaps ITS cannot refer to Tea from a meaning perspective in the context of the idiom (In addition to X,Y) ?

[JbhB682]

Continuation from above post

Ron mentioned

By Ron :
Here, "Y" says that the brewed leaves do xxxxx. So, for "in addition to" to make sense, "X" should be another statement about the brewed leaves. Not about something else (= the tea itself)

But we do say the following do we not ?

in addition to Sam singing, John can dance too.

Here X and Y (in the idiom In addition to X,Y ) have different subjects completely.

[esledge]

But we do say the following do we not ?

in addition to Sam singing, John can dance too.

Here X and Y (in the idiom In addition to X,Y ) have different subjects completely.

We do not. It's meaning, not just parallelism, that makes it wrong.

Here are things we might say:

In addition to singing, John can dance.
---> (John has two skills. The two words are not exactly parallel--and they don't necessarily have to be, because "in addition to" is a modifier, not a parallel marker. In your example, it's not clear why something Sam is doing would be "in addition to" something else that John is doing. The example below attempts to make sense of that idea.)

In addition to Sam's singing, John's dancing is featured in the show. ---> (Parallel "(person)'s -ing" are both "featured in the show.")

[JbhB682]

Thank you Emily. Just one follow up in a sentence like this

In addition to Pfizer's possibilities for preventing A and inhibiting B, Pfizer may play a role in reducing C.

In this made up sentence, the subject is the same (Pfizer vaccine) .

Do you think possibilities and may play a role make sense in the context of the idiom In addition To from a meaing perspective ?

I understand possibilities and may play a role dont have to be parallel but do they make sense as a list of two items.

I have read posts suggesting may play a role does not make sense with possibilities in the context of In addition To

Just wondering what your thoughts were.

Thank you

[esledge]

Something about "Company's possibilities for doing this and doing that" violates idiom (internally, not just the lack of parallelism you note in the rest of your sentence). It should be "the possibility that the company's PRODUCT does (or will do) A and B," because "possibilities" don't do things...the product could possibly do something. I'd rewrite as below before answering your other questions:

In addition to the possibility that (the company)'s medicine will prevent A and inhibit B, it may play a role in reducing C.

Do you think possibilities and may play a role make sense in the context of the idiom In addition To from a meaing perspective ?

I understand possibilities and may play a role dont have to be parallel but do they make sense as a list of two items.

I have read posts suggesting may play a role does not make sense with possibilities in the context of In addition To

I do think that trying to force "possibilities" as the compared noun is problematic here. Think of the meaning: The medicine can do two things, and may even do a third. Write the sentence with that in mind: all three (A, B, and C) are "possibilities," but two are just more immediate (or known) than the third. In my rewrite, "possibilities" is in the root phrase/core sentence because it applies to all three effects of the medicine. And notice the parallelism highlighted in orange and blue. The contrast is really the blue text: the difference between what WILL happen and what MAY happen.