Fact or Friction?

Saundra Adams of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in Washington, D.C. chalked up a gem for the record when she said that her goal in my writing seminar was to improve in her ability to distinguish fact from friction in her writing. At first, one might consider her statement a malapropism of the cliché, “distinguish fact from fiction.”

But think again. In technical writing, straying from the facts may lead to friction, so choose words carefully. For example, suppose Joe, your manager, said at a staff meeting, “I think we could reduce operating expenses by subcontracting our printing services.” In the meeting minutes, you should not write :

Joe thinks we could reduce operating expenses by subcontracting our printing services.

That sort of writing seems like you’re reading the boss’s mind. In this situation, you have three better choices:

1. Do not write about his comment at all.

2. Write precisely what he said by directly quoting him: Joe said, “I think we could reduce operating expenses by subcontracting our printing services.”

3. Ask Joe for clarification before writing the comment.

In any case, remember that Joe is the boss, so get his approval before writing. Why? It’s not always the facts that count, but the facts that management wants to discuss. That mindset will help you in distinguishing fact from friction.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Logical Fallacies, Part 20: Poisoning the Well

I conclude this series on logical fallacies with poisoning the well, a logical fallacy akin to the ad hominem argument (see July 15 posting). At the risk of appearing redundant, I’ve included it because the term frequently appears in writing. One “poisons the well” when discrediting the source of a claim with the intention of refuting the claim itself. Example:

How can we allow allow a man of another faith to speak to our congregation on family values?

If you’ve found these last 20 postings useful, you might want to read Nonsense: A Handbook of Logical Fallacies by Robert J. Gula.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Logical Fallacies, Part 19: Composition

On the flip side of the fallacy of division (see November 4 posting) is the fallacy of composition. It arises when reasoning that something true about a part of a subject must be true of the whole. Examples:

New Yorkers are aggressive people. I should know: I’ve met two aggressive New Yorkers.

The project manager is brilliant, so I’m sure that the entire project team is up to the task.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144

Logical Fallacies, Part 18: Division

The logical fallacy of division occurs when reasoning that something true about a subject must also be true of its parts. Examples:

Our new CFO, Ken Allen, previously worked for Microsoft, a multinational coproration known for treating its employees with integrity; therefore, expect Mr. Allen to treat his staff respectfully.

The CD player in the car must be expensive because the car itself is expensive.


To purchase your copy of The Art of On-the-Job Writing by Philip Vassallo, click here: http://firstbooks.com/shop/shopexd.asp?id=144