Honest hedging — guarding vs assuring language
◈ 5 cards"On the evidence available" is a guard that makes a claim defensible; "as any expert would confirm" is an assurance that adds no evidence; "clearly the best" is false certainty. Commit, and hedge honestly.
Three kinds of words around a claim
Van Cleave names three things a writer does to a claim besides state it. Guarding weakens the claim so that it is harder to show false — probably, on the figures provided, assuming volumes stay flat, in most cases. Assuring tells the reader there are further reasons without giving them — experts agree, it is well known, as any accountant would confirm, clearly. Discounting anticipates an objection in order to dismiss it — although the lease costs more over ten years, … — and is legitimate when the objection is then actually answered.
Only one of the three adds nothing. A guard is honest when it names a real assumption: assuming flat volumes tells the reader what the recommendation rests on and what would break it. An assurance is a substitute for evidence: experts agree gives the reader nobody to check and nothing to weigh. And false certainty — clearly, undoubtedly, the only sensible choice — is worse than an assurance: Smith lists pretending certainty where tentativeness and degrees of probability would be more accurate among his eleven unethical persuasive techniques, because it presents a judgement as a fact and asks the reader not to think.
Worked example — one sentence, three ways
> Leasing is clearly the best choice, as any expert would confirm.
Strip it. Clearly is false certainty — the matrix leads 4.10 to 3.05, which is a strong lead, not a certainty. As any expert would confirm is an assurance — no expert was consulted, and if one had been, the sentence would cite them. What is left is leasing is the best choice, and that is the claim, unguarded. Now guard it with the real assumptions:
> On the figures provided and assuming volumes stay roughly flat, leasing is the strongest of the three fixes.
The guard names two things the reader can check — the figures and the volume assumption — and strongest of the three fixes is exactly as confident as the matrix. Notice the recommendation is still one recommendation. Guarding did not make it vague.
The opposite failure — over-hedging
> It may perhaps be worth considering whether leasing could, in some circumstances, be an option.
Five hedges and no claim. This fails the first R-psp-4 line — a single clear recommendation — as surely as "it depends" does; it is caution performed rather than exercised. The test for a guard: does it name which assumption or evidence the claim rests on? Assuming flat volumes does; perhaps does not. A hedge that names nothing is vagueness.
Rewrite two
"Everyone knows a new press pays for itself within three years." — Assurance (everyone knows) plus a figure with no source. → If repairs continue at last year's $38,000, a new press's annual cost is recovered against repairs within about four years; that assumes the repair trend holds.
"There is no doubt that outsourcing would destroy the business." — False certainty and an appeal to consequences. → Outsourcing would cut margin on $310,000 of work from 42 % to 18 %, about $74,400 a year, and make two operators redundant; on those figures it is the weakest option.
State the distinction cold
Guarding: a hedge that names the assumption or evidence a claim rests on, so the claim is defensible. Assuring: a phrase that adds confidence without adding evidence. False certainty: a judgement dressed as a fact — one of Smith's eleven. Commit to one recommendation; guard it with the real assumptions; add no assurances.