Don't Write Like This: A Cautionary Tale from Ed Rogers

Afternoon Fellow Monkeys,

I realize this piece isn't exactly about finance, in fact, it has very little to do with finance directly. But, a review of a recent piece by Ed Rogers in the Washington Post gives us a chance to discuss how you should not write. I've had the opportunity to talk with people in equity research and they all have to cram as much strong and well developed evidence into a very short report. I know, ER reports are not exactly brief, but apparently most don't read past the first few pages. So, being able to make your case quickly and effectively is paramount. I assure you, if any of you turn in a report with reasoning and logic like this, you'll get fired on the spot. Yes, it's that bad.

At any rate, the article in question is about how the GOP should continue to oppose marijuana legalization. Now, just to be clear, I'm not going to make and argue a different position. No, I'm going to point out just how badly he makes and argues his position so that you fine monkeys won't make the same egregious and ridiculous errors in your own careers.

The post starts off as a rebuttal to a different piece previously written for the Washington Post, Five Myths About Marijuana Legalization. The article starts out promisingly enough with the author stating:

In his column, Fine states five common-sensical assertions regarding marijuana use in our country that he wishes weren’t true, labels them as myths, and presto, concludes that legalizing weed will actually help solve a lot of problems.

Reading this, you may think that the remainder of the column will be devoted to refuting the evidence put forth by the original author with new and/or different evidence that the current author finds more compelling. You would be wrong. Rogers attempts only to refute the first point noted by the original author:

In [the original author, Doug Fine's] case, “myth” number one is that, “If pot is legal, more people will use it.” To rebut that statement, Fine cites something or another about drug use in Portugal between the years 2002 and 2006.

While the tone of this particular passage leaves something to be desired, the actual content doesn't pose anything necessarily worrying. But, when you monkeys are writing, if you make it abundantly clear that you haven't looked at opposing information because you think it's stupid (see bolded section), you've weakened your argument, not bolstered it. However, it gets worse in the very next sentence:

I’m not kidding, this is the best they’ve got. I don’t know what it is about modern life in Portugal that we should seek to emulate or why Portuguese drug use should serve as a model for drug use in the United States.

This is not, under any circumstances, an argument. This is an uninformed opinion with no factual backing. Saying, "Portugal is totes stupid, right!" is absolutely not an argument. In fact, this may be the first ad hominem attack I've ever seen leveled against an entire nation. Stay away from logical fallacies, period, and definitely do not put them on steroids. Sadly, the article closes with the same piss poor effort as it started:

At a base level, our politics should seek to promote a more sober, safe and virtuous society, and nothing about making pot use more widespread than it already is serves the common interest.

Again, you would expect some evidence here yet find none. Be very aware about when you're making a "strong" statement because they all require support. For instance, if you were to say, "GE appears to make products that are purchased by consumers and companies," well, that's a fairly weak statement, and most would not require additional evidence because it doesn't say much. But, if you were to say, "GE makes products that are purchased by alien invaders," that's a very strong statement, and you better have some evidence to back it up. In the above passage, "At a base level, our politics should seek to promote a more sober, safe and virtuous society," is a weak statement. The author is merely stating an opinion, indicated by the word "should". But the second half, "nothing about making pot use more widespread than it already is serves the common interest" is a very strong statement that goes wholly unsupported. What is the common interest? By what measure or effect would widespread use hurt the common interest?

Somewhat hilariously, the article that Rogers is attempting to refute does a very good job with providing evidence to support strong statements. Now, just to be clear, I'm not saying that one position is right and the other is wrong, just that one position is well argued and the other is argued extremely poorly. When writing for work, be the one who supports his assertions with evidence, avoids logical fallacies, and takes an appropriate tone in their writing. In short, be the one who argues well.