Post History

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37501
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Source: https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/37501
License name: CC BY-SA 3.0
License URL: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

It is not redundant. You are providing information about the structure of your presentation to come, making a promise to discuss all of the possible classes of "a response". Such promises are recommended, if the alternative to "evasion" is XYZ, then it is easier for people to listen to your XYZ discussion if they know you won't ignore their question of how to deal with "evasion"; whether or not you will **get** to dealing with "evasion" will not occupy their minds: You said you would.

**_Whether_** to use parentheticals is a matter of opinion. In my opinion (a professor and research scientist that writes non-fiction academic articles) parentheticals should be avoided.

The reason for that is they appear to be a narrator with interrupting thoughts they have not bothered to order. It looks unprofessional. In non-fiction, you have plenty of time to order your thoughts, and should not appear to be speaking extemporaneously.

Just break it up into two sentences.

> The response will be either an evasion, or XYZ. We will discuss XYZ, and then dealing with evasion.

Or, as Michael said in commentary below, something like

> The response will be either an evasion, or XYZ.  
> \subsection{ Evasion }  
> ...  
> \subsection{ XYZ }  
> ...

Original score: 1