Impractical vs. Impracticable — What's the Difference?

Impractical refers to ideas or methods that, while possible, are not advisable due to inefficiency, inconvenience, or lack of foresight. For example, wearing high heels on a hiking trip is impractical due to the terrain and activity. On the other hand, impracticable describes scenarios or tasks that are impossible to carry out or achieve, regardless of effort or desire. An example would be trying to sail a boat on a dry riverbed.

Impracticality often stems from a lack of practicality in everyday scenarios, emphasizing inconvenience or ineffectiveness. An impractical approach might work theoretically but fails under real-world conditions due to unforeseen complications or inefficiencies. Whereas, impracticability arises from the inherent impossibility of an action or plan, often due to physical limitations or insurmountable obstacles.

In many contexts, impractical solutions may still be pursued if they hold some form of theoretical value or novelty. These solutions, despite being considered impractical, can sometimes lead to innovative breakthroughs. Impracticable solutions, however, are typically abandoned early in the planning stages because they fundamentally cannot be realized.

When evaluating options, impractical ones might still be considered under certain conditions or with adjustments, suggesting they have potential viability but require modifications to work effectively. In contrast, impracticable options are usually dismissed outright because no feasible amount of adjustment can make them workable.

Impractical decisions or ideas might be critiqued for lacking in pragmatism, suggesting that more grounded or practical alternatives are available and preferable. Impracticable decisions, however, are acknowledged as being beyond the realm of feasibility, indicating that alternatives need to be sought simply because the original idea cannot be executed.