Odd wording... what do you think?

[QxV]

The pattern says the following:

20SC, 5BLSC, 20SC (=45). Ch1. Turn.
 Work the SC into both loops of st from previous R.

But a SC MEANS that your working it into both loops no? Is this being redundant, or am I missing something?

Edited June 21, 2019 by QxV

[Tampa Doll]

The way I read it and I am sure Granny Squares will be here to help, but I hope this helps.

20 SC in both loops - 5 SC in the back loop only (loop furthest from you) then 20 SC in both loops.  You will have 5 stitches with a loop in front of them.

Hope this helps.

[bgs]

Yes if it says sc it means working thru both loops.  The pattern is just trying to make it very clear since you did make some back loop only stitches on the previous row.

[Granny Square]

Hi QxV and Tampa Doll, and I agree with what Tampa Doll said. 

A BLSC is a different stitch than a plain SC--it looks different (the unused front loop creates a 'line' on the fabric) and the stitch is made differently.  

Sometimes this horizontal line is just decorative (it can serve to outline something to make it seem to stand out; your pattern over just a few stitches might be to make a textural vertical stripe  for example, or if the piece is worked back and forth, it might be for shaping because it would form sideways ribbing).  Or the unused front loop could be functional (on a 3D thing, it can help to appear to turn a sharper corner--example, transitioning from the bottom of a purse to the sides), or sometimes the unused loop is used as the base of a decorative stitch that's made over the surface of a fabric by reaching down to it from a few rows above.  

So it is not at all redundant.  I'm sure those BLO stitches are there for a reason. 

Edit, Hi Bgs, we hit 'post' at the same time.

Edited June 21, 2019 by Granny Square

[bgs]

I took it to mean you were questioning the part " work sc into both loops of stitches from previous row" as being redundant and not that you were questioning the back loop only sc.

[Granny Square]

Oh, duh, that makes sense.  Yes that would be redundant.