Ordering the circular paragraph before it goes to 400 agents
A draft paragraph for a branch circular has arrived with its five sentences out of order, and one sentence that the editor believes does not belong at all. The five are: (P) In the year to March, motor third-party claims rose 19 per cent while premium in the same segment grew only 6 per cent. (Q) That squeeze is the predictable result of a tariff that has not been revised since 2019, even as repair costs and hospital charges have climbed. (R) Group health portfolios show the same arithmetic, with claims ratios crossing 110 per cent in several states. (S) Crop insurance, by contrast, is heavily subsidised by the state and is therefore priced on an entirely different logic. (T) Unless the pricing question is reopened, insurers will keep repricing group health and motor cover, and policyholders will pay for the delay. The circular goes to 400 agents, some of whom read only the first two lines. The editor wants a defensible order, not a personal preference, and a version of the last sentence that a customer-facing circular can carry without sounding like a threat.
1. Identify the sentence that does not belong, give the order of the remaining four, and name the connector that justifies each link.
Read the worked answer
Sentence that does not belong: (S). It introduces a subsidised line priced on a different logic, and its opening 'by contrast' has nothing to contrast with - the paragraph is about a premium-versus-claims squeeze, not about subsidy. Keeping it would break the chain of reference in (R) and (T).
Order: P – Q – R – T.
- P → Q: P states the raw divergence (claims +19%, premium +6%). Q takes it up with 'That squeeze', a demonstrative that must point backwards to data already given. Put Q first and 'that squeeze' is dangling.
- Q → R: R's 'the same arithmetic' needs a described arithmetic to refer to; Q supplies it by explaining the cause of the margin problem. R then extends the argument from motor to group health, widening the claim.
- R → T: T's 'the pricing question' is a compressed reference to the unrevised tariff described in Q, and 'group health and motor cover' picks up both lines, in reverse order of their introduction - a standard closing move. T also converts description into consequence, which is where a circular should end.
The paragraph is coherent only when each anaphor - 'that squeeze', 'the same arithmetic', 'the pricing question' - has its antecedent to the left.
2. Rewrite (T) as one sentence suitable for a customer-facing circular: keep the meaning, remove the veiled threat, and explain what you changed and why.
Read the worked answer
Draft rewrite: 'A review of the tariff is therefore the surest way to keep group health and motor cover affordable; without it, both lines will continue to be repriced as costs rise.'
What changed and why:
- 'insurers will keep repricing … and policyholders will pay for the delay' casts the insurer as extracting payment from the customer and the regulator as the culprit. In a circular that customers may read, that is a reputational liability, not a neutral forecast.
- 'the pricing question' is firm shorthand. A customer-facing text needs the referent spelled out as 'the tariff'.
- 'Unless … is reopened' is a conditional threat structure. It is replaced with a statement of consequence, so the sentence informs rather than warns.
- 'as costs rise' keeps the causal honesty of the original - repricing is being driven by claims inflation - without assigning blame to a party.
What must not change: the sentence still says that cover will get more expensive if the tariff is not reviewed. Softening tone is not licence to soften content; a rewrite that drops the consequence would be a different claim, not a politer one.
3. A colleague argues that (R) should come before (Q), because evidence should precede explanation. Argue the case against, using the exact wording of the sentences.
Read the worked answer
The general principle is sound; it is the wording of these particular sentences that decides the point.
If R came before Q, the paragraph would read: P gives the motor divergence, R says group health shows 'the same arithmetic', and Q then explains a squeeze that has not yet been described for group health. The problem is 'the same arithmetic'. Arithmetic means the gap between what is earned and what is paid out; P has shown a premium-claims gap, but Q is what names and explains it. Moving R forward leaves 'the same' pointing at a comparison the reader has not been given.
There is a second, subtler cost. Q explains the squeeze as a tariff that has not been revised since 2019 plus rising repair and hospital costs. R's group-health claims ratio of 110 per cent is much more persuasive once that mechanism is on the table, because the reader can see the same mechanism producing a different number in a different line. Explanation-then-parallel-evidence is stronger here than evidence-then-explanation, precisely because the evidence in R is a bare figure with no stated cause.
A fair concession: if R had been written as an independent statistic with its own cause - say, 'Group health claims ratios crossed 110 per cent as hospital charges rose' - it could lead. As drafted, it cannot.