The same finding, a different reader

The same finding, a different reader

Making four revision decisions that all follow from one change of audience.

1. 38.1Rhetorical synthesisStandard

   Which opening best conveys the finding to the new readers?

   • AA study of 3,200 people over 70 found no clear evidence that a daily vitamin D supplement reduced broken bones.
   • BA study of 3,200 people over 70 found that vitamin D supplements prevent broken bones.
   • CCholecalciferol supplementation produced a hazard ratio of 0.94 in adults aged over 70.
   • DVitamin D was tested on 3,200 adults in a recent study.
   Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning

   A study of 3,200 people over 70 found no clear evidence that a daily vitamin D supplement reduced broken bones.

   The finding is a result that did not reach significance, so "no clear evidence" keeps it while "prevent" reverses it. The hazard ratio is the same sentence in the old register, and the last choice reports that a study happened without saying what it found.

2. 38.2TransitionsStandard

   Builds on: Question 1 committed to "no clear evidence" rather than "no effect". The transition has to fit that: there is something left to qualify only because the first sentence stopped short of a denial.

   The next sentence explains that the result might still be real but too small for this study to detect. Which transition should open it?

   • AThat said,
   • BAs a result,
   • CFor example,
   • DIn other words,
   Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning

   That said,

   The sentence qualifies what has just been reported rather than following from it or restating it. "In other words" would promise a paraphrase, which would misdescribe a genuinely new point about the study's limits.

3. 38.3Rhetorical synthesisChallenge

   Builds on: Questions 1 and 2 together, because between them they have already stated in plain words what the interval encodes. Without both, the interval would be adding something.

   A sub-editor wants to add the confidence interval. What is the strongest reason not to?

   • AIt is the most important number in the original paragraph.
   • BIt would repeat what the previous sentence has already said in words.
   • CConfidence intervals are not relevant to older readers.
   • DThe newspaper has no space for it.
   Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning

   It would repeat what the previous sentence has already said in words.

   The interval crossing 1 is exactly what "no clear evidence" and the qualification about a small effect have already conveyed. Omitting it costs the reader nothing here; the objection is redundancy, not the readers' capacity or the page budget.

4. 38.4OrganizationChallenge

   Builds on: The whole set, and question 2 in particular: the closing sentence has to be consistent with a result that was inconclusive rather than negative.

   The editor asks for one closing sentence. Which best serves these readers without overstating the finding?

   • AAnyone over 70 should ask their doctor about vitamin D supplements before changing what they take.
   • BThe evidence shows that vitamin D supplements are a waste of money.
   • CLarger studies are needed before the question can be settled.
   • DVitamin D remains essential for bone health in older adults.
   Show the answer and reasoningHide the reasoning

   Larger studies are needed before the question can be settled.

   A study that could not detect a small effect points to exactly this, and it stays inside what the finding supports. Calling supplements a waste of money asserts the absence of an effect the study did not establish, and the other two give advice the paragraph has no basis for.