TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Hi gang. I posted the following survey a few months ago to this newsgroup
and the alt.usage.english newsgroup:
>> The author of the following sentence claims that the use of the
>> word "casualties" is clear. I say it's ambiguous. Here it is:
>> Kaplin's data show that car-bike collisions caused only
>> a small fraction of cyclist casualties (17% in his study).
^^^^^^^^^^
>> How do you interpret the word "casualties" in this context?
>> A) injuries (minor, requiring a doctor visit)
>> B) injuries (major, requiring hospitalization)
>> C) property damage
>> D) death
>> E) a combination of the above (please list by letter)
>> F) all of the above
A total of 12 people responded:
6 - minor injuries, major injuries, and death
3 - death
2 - major injuries and death
1 - minor injuries, major injuries, property damage, and death
Note that everyone agreed casualties could mean death. The author *insists*
the word means injuries and property damage. He's going to love this
summary.
Thanks so much for your help!
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| KC Warren |
| warrenk -at- csos -dot- orst -dot- edu "Question authority and all statistics" |
|------------------------------------------------------------------------|
