Martin E. P. Seligman
From a psych paper on writing that was recommended to me. I like the right-wrong examples. I can’t ever find it posted on its own when I want to find it, so for my own use here it is.
Here are some errors to avoid:
Vacant Lead Sentences.
The first sentences of each section, and the first sentences of each paragraph as well, are the most important sentences. They should state, in plain English, your main points. Then the details can follow.
Right:
Results. Cognitive therapy prevented relapse better than drug therapy. Drug therapy did better than no therapy at all. Analysis of covariance…
Wrong:
Results. We performed four analyses of covariance on our data, first transforming them to z scores. We then did paired comparisons using a Bonferroni correction…
Qualifiers and Caveats.
Don’t squander the opportunity to write forcefully by beginning with secondary points and caveats. They belong in the body of the paragraph or section, but not as openers.
Distinguish between strong and weak statements. Good scientific writing uses qualifiers and caveats sparingly. Qualifiers apply to marginal results, arguable statements, speculations, and potential artifacts. They do not apply to strong findings, well-confirmed statements, or bedrock theory. “Seem”, “appear”, “indicate”, “may”, “suggest” and the like are meaningful verbs. They are not to be used reflexively.
Right:
Because volume was barely significant, water-deprivation may lower hunger. Electric shock, however, increased hunger two-fold.
Wrong:
Our findings suggest that electric shock may increase hunger. It also appears that water-deprivation seems to lower hunger.
Big words and long sentences.
Most readers are busy. Many readers are lazy. Many readers just scan. Help these readers by using short sentences and plain words. Whenever a big word tempts you, look hard for a plain word. Whenever a long sentence tempts you, find a way to break it up. The big word and the long sentence must increase accuracy a lot to make up for impeding reading.
Wrong:
Thus, by assigning this group to the wait-list condition, treatment effects would not be artificially inflated by including the higher income group with a better prognosis in the initial treatment phase.
Right:
Richer people have less depression. So we biassed against our hypothesis by putting more of them in the wait-list control.
Overwriting.
Omit words and ideas that the reader already knows. Overwriting slows the reader down and does not increase accuracy at all.
Wrong:
The wait list control group, when compared to the attention control group, the drug treatment group and the psychotherapy treament group did worse than the attention control group, and much worse than the experimental drug treatment group and the psychotherapy treatment group.
Right:
Psychotherapy and drugs did better than attention alone and much better than no treatment.
The Royal “We” and the Passive Voice.
Poor writers turn to the awkward passive voice to avoid saying “I did such and such”. The first person, used sparingly, is fine. Write forcefully and use the active voice whenever you can.
Right:
I propose that animals can learn about noncontingency and, when they do, they become helpless.
Wrong:
It is suggested that animals can learn about noncontingency. When noncontingency is learned by an animal, helplessness results.
Citations in the middle.
Don’t break up sentences with citations. This small increase in accuracy slows the reader to a crawl. If you can manage it, group all your citations at the end of the paragraph.