| STATEMENT | EDUCATION | ART | DESIGN | WRITING | CONTACT |
 |
|
|
| Introduction | Academic | Poetry |
|
Excerpt from Communicating with Greater Accuracy:
| #1 PERSPECTIVE |
 |
| Does this point of view reveal the whole truth? |
|
|
|
Sometimes, our point of view does
not reveal the whole truth. It only reveals a part of a bigger
picture. The keywords in the right hand column below can help us to make it clear that certain ideas represent a single point of view or a few points of view. These keywords can keep us from making incorrect statements that pass partial truths as whole truths. |
|
|
| EXAMPLE AND COMPARISON |
|
|
| The following is an example of a statement that has been modified to contain the keyword “for” so that a partial truth will not be passed as the whole truth: |
| NAFTA is bad. | → | NAFTA has been bad for the textile workers of America. |
Why? Because, it is a sweeping generalization that is incorrect. It fails to consider many favorable points of view on NAFTA. Therefore, it does not represent the whole truth.
Just to give you a background, NAFTA stands for The North American Free Trade Agreement, an agreement that in 1994 eliminated most tariff and non-tariff barriers to trade and investment between American, Canada, and Mexico. Under NAFTA, trade between these three countries tripled, surpassing $894 billion in 2007.
If an executive is to be fair about NAFTA, she must respect and not negate the point of view of those who have benefited from this increase in trade. For example, she must respect the point of view of the corn farmers of America, a segment of American farmers who have greatly benefited from increased exports to Mexico.
Now let us consider the modified statement, “NAFTA has been bad for the textile workers of America.” The keyword “for” makes this statement more accurate because it specifically addresses the point of view of the textile workers of America. One of the arguments of NAFTA’s critics has been that NAFTA was a major step towards a mass migration of textile factories to countries that have had much lower labor and operating costs. I say a major step because NAFTA made way for many other trade agreements that have negatively affected the textiles workers of America, such as the free trade agreement with the Dominican Republic.
To put it simply, because of NAFTA and many other trade agreements that followed in its wake, a large number of textile factories in America had to shut down and move abroad, causing most American textile factory workers to lose their jobs.
The modified statement is a more accurate statement that clearly addresses the point of view of the textile workers of America. The modified statement is a bulletproof statement that helps to preserve an executive’s credibility. No one can claim that the modified statement is incorrect.
A COMPLETE VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE FOR THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN AUTHORIZED TO VIEW IT.