dedication, programs, hardware, and lines of isn’t whether the group should exist but what it authority. But such broad language isn’t likely to evoke in a reader’s mind the same experiences it evokes in a writer’s. Lazy writing overuses such vague terms. Often it weakens them further by substituting adjectives; for example: immense dedication, enhanced programs, viable hardware, and responsive lines of authority. FOR TRY aircraft plane plane F-18 improved  costs lower costs enhanced  method faster method; cheaper method Tone —a writer’s attitude toward the subject or readers—causes relatively few problems in routine letters. The rules are straight forward. Subordinates may suggest, request, or recom- mend, but only superiors may direct. Although pronouns are acceptable, don’t “get personal.” Courtesy is required; warmth is not. Because much of our writing is routine, tone causes problems when the subject matter is delicate. The more sensitive the reader or issue, the more careful we must be to promote good will. Tactlessness in writing suggests clumsiness in general. When feelings are involved, one misused word can make an enemy. What do you think of an organization that would send a letter containing the following sentences? At our last meeting you requested agenda topics for a meeting of the Committee on Atmosphere and Oceans. I certainly sup- port this interagency grouping as it may serve as an appropriate forum for addressing our marine technology needs and concerns. The first sentence is just lazy, for it does no more than repeat the request. The real trouble comes from the second sentence, whose attempt at good will backfires. Certainly is a needless intensifier, like many words ending in /y. Interagency grouping is pompous for group. Needs and concerns add bulk; only one of the words is needed. Certainly support this is undermined by it may serve. May serve? The issue should  discuss. The person who signed the letter improved the passage by dropping the second sentence and making the first one do more work: As you requested, I am submitting some agenda topics for the meeting of the Committee on Atmosphere and Oceans. Now imagine you have asked for more time to complete a correspondence course. Here is the last sentence of the letter that turns you down: If we can be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to write. Beware of such rubber-stamp endings. They don’t improve good letters or save bad ones. To the reader whose request has been denied, further assistance promises further disappointment. The closing sentence should be dropped entirely or tied to the rest of the letter: This setback aside, we hope you will take advantage of other correspondence courses available to you. Most no answers need some explanation. Yes answers need little explanation because readers get what they want. Finally, imagine you are a reservist who has asked to stay on active duty even though you have a serious illness. How would the following answer strike you? Because you have failed to pass the prescribed physical examination, you will be removed from active duty. Failed? Removed? Those words hint at crime and punishment. To avoid such tactlessness, the writer should have used positive wording. NEGATIVE POSITIVE Opportunity is limited. Competition is keen. Stop writing badly. Start writing well. Don’t use the small hoist. Use the big hoist. The cup is half empty. The cup is half full. 2-52