Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Is elaborating the opposite case in brackets acceptable and clear?

+0
−0

Is Sentence A an acceptable and clear way of shortening Sentence B?

  • Sentence A:

    A firm outperforms (underperforms) the industry when expression (1) results in a positive (negative) value.

  • Sentence B:

    A firm outperforms the industry when expression (1) results in a positive value, and underperforms the industry when expression (1) results in a negative value.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/44413. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

3 answers

You are accessing this answer with a direct link, so it's being shown above all other answers regardless of its score. You can return to the normal view.

+1
−0

If you are writing a paper in a context where the type of shortening in A is a recognized device for the kind of contrast you use in B, then you can use it.

Personally, I've never seen anything like it before—and I've worked on papers across a wide range of academic and technical genres.

To me, when reading the first sentence, it simply seems contradictory and confusing. It reminds me of somebody with a devil on one shoulder and an angel on the other shoulder, where the angel is speaking but the devil occasionally interjects with parenthetical opposites. In other words, the parenthetical words read like sarcastic statements, denying, or at least questioning, the validity of what's actually being said.

Had I not gone on to read B, I would have had to work at understanding what A was trying to express for far more time than had I read a simpler sentence. Brevity does not always equate to simplicity.

You save some words with A, but, unless you're certain that the device is known to the reader, you risk their confusion. Although I don't think B really needs to be shortened in the first place, there are other ways it could be done.

Such as:

A firm outperforms the industry when a positive value results from expression (1)—and underperforms when a negative results.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44423. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+1
−0

If you're certain you want to shorten the sentence in that way, the word 'respectively' would be be a very useful tool for clarifying what grammatical role is being played by each of the bracketed sections. In your case, I would write the sentence as:

A firm outperforms (or underperforms) the industry when expression (1) results in a positive (respectively, negative) value.

This is probably best used when the context is relatively formal/academic where readers are more likely to expect and understand this structure.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/44458. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

+0
−0

It is acceptable, this kind of thing is done often in academic papers (to save space, there is often a page-limit in journal articles); but (B) is more clear than (A), that is probably why it was written that way.

Unless saving a handful of words is very important, stick with (B).

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »