The 41-Word Sentence That Has to Sound Firm, Not Defensive
A division chief drafts this sentence for an all-staff email about a telework survey: "After reviewing the survey results, the new telework policy was found to be confusing by many employees, which the deputy director said she would revise before the next quarter, but only if staff who had concerns about it submitted them by Friday." The email reaches 1,400 employees, and the chief wants the whole message under 90 words. She insists every fact survive: the survey found confusion, the deputy director will revise the policy, the revision comes before next quarter, and comments are due Friday. She also wants the message to read as firm but not defensive. A colleague warns that cutting the sentence to fit the limit will make it sound curt.
1. Identify the structural faults in the draft sentence and produce a revision of no more than 35 words that preserves every fact and meets the chief's tone requirement.
Read the worked answer
Faults, in order of damage
- Dangling modifier. "After reviewing the survey results" is an introductory phrase that must attach to the person doing the reviewing. In the draft it attaches to "the new telework policy," producing the absurd reading that the policy reviewed the survey. The passive construction ("was found to be") is what hides the agent.
- Ambiguous relative pronoun. "which" follows both a finding and a policy, so a reader cannot tell whether the deputy director will revise the finding or the policy.
- Buried main point. The actionable instruction (comments due Friday) sits in the final subordinate clause, after two layers of subordination; readers scanning on a phone will miss it.
- Weak verbs. "was found to be confusing by many employees" is a passive nominalization where an active verb would be shorter and more accountable.
Revision (29 words)
A recent survey found that many employees find the new telework policy confusing. The deputy director will revise it before next quarter, so send her your concerns by Friday.
Why this satisfies the constraints: the modifier problem disappears once the survey is the subject; "it" has one possible antecedent; the instruction moves to the main clause; and the two short sentences plus the imperative "send" read firm without an accusatory edge. The colleague's worry about curtness is answered by length control, not by adding hedges - "please" and "we appreciate" would push the message toward the defensive register the chief rejected.
2. The chief asks whether "many employees" should be replaced with "62% of respondents." Advise her, showing the reasoning behind your recommendation.
Read the worked answer
The decision turns on the denominator, not on the percentage.
A percentage is more precise than "many," but only if the base is disclosed and defensible. If 62% is 62% of 410 respondents out of 1,400 employees, the response rate is roughly 29% - and the sentence as written would let a reader hear "62% of employees." That is the kind of overstatement that gets quoted back at an agency in a hearing.
Recommended wording: name the measured population and, if space allows, the base - e.g., "62% of the 410 employees who answered the survey." This is still firm, is shorter than the passive original, and pre-empts the challenge.
When to keep "many": if the response rate is very low, if the sample was self-selected in a way that overrepresents the dissatisfied, or if the survey instrument has not been cleared for release. In those cases a proportion implies a measurement the office cannot defend, and a qualitative statement is the honest choice.
Test to apply: ask what number the chief would cite if a reporter asked "62% of whom?" If no clean answer exists, the percentage should not appear in the email.