This is a rule I’ve learned as a tech writer. And it applies almost everywhere except in puzzles.
Think about the conclusion that you want the other person to reach, and state it directly. Don’t give them the information and make them draw the obvious conclusion. Sounds obvious, but so often people expect the listener to make a tiny jump of logic. And the listener often doesn’t do it.
Wrong: “Pressing the red button stops the machine.”
Right: “Press the red button to stop the machine.”
Even better: “To stop the machine, press the red button.”
I’ve written things both ways and when I used the wrong version, taken tech support calls along the lines of “how do I stop the machine?” Yes, there are people who don’t make the jump. No, they aren’t stupid, not all of them. They have other things on their minds. They have a job to do, and reading the manual isn’t the job. If I were writing a novel or an essay, I might include a thought-provoking item, a kind of puzzle, in order to bring the reader to a deeper understanding or just amuse the reader. In a manual, if I make my reader think I have screwed up. Writing without expecting the reader to think is harder than it sounds. Much harder.
Wrong: “I’d like the salt, please.”
Right: “Please pass the salt.”
In the first one, I’m informing you of my state of mind - desire for salt - and expecting you to make the tiny logical jump - I want you to pass the salt. In the second, I’m not expecting you to think. This example is no big deal - except that I’ve seen families get into fights that could have been prevented just that easily.
There are bigger examples. During the 2004 Presidential campaign, reversing tax cuts was a big issue for the Democrats. They expected the voters to understand that tax cuts for one group must be made up by tax increases on another, cuts in spending, or deficits. So the tax cuts are bad. Wrong. Tax cuts feel good. Tax cuts ARE good - the consequences may not be worth it but the cut itself is good. A tax cut is always a good thing. The tax cuts under discussion are part of a disasterous fiscal policy, and there is no way to include huge tax cuts in a responsible budget at this time. If I go home tonight and find a Ferrari in my driveway, a gift from my wife, the Ferrari is a fabulous wonderful thing - but I will not be happy, because of the financial consequences. Do I hate the Ferrari? Hell no. I hate the payments, the insurance, the maintainance. Love the car. What the Democrats were really against wasn’t the tax cuts, but the consequences of the tax cuts. They expected voters to think and make the tiny logical jump. They said they were against the tax cuts - are you against tax cuts? Do you like taxes? You think about it and you understand it’s a little more complicated than that, but some percentage isn’t going to think about it. Some percentage of the voters was entirely in agreement with the Democratic position and voted against them because the Democrats expected them to think and they didn’t. The exact same policy, described in terms of debt, of middle-class tax hikes (yep, those are in the works, in the form of reduced and eliminated deductions) of cut programs, might have made a difference.
