0

Is it possible to use the construction on the one hand ... on the other hand with multiple complex arguments supporting two opposing options? I have doubts. Usually it looks like this:

"On the one hand, she is a good cook, on the other hand, she constantly smells of burned fat. So it is one to one."

I have a bit complex mathematical optimization problem and I would like to state it clearly:

"The most profitable inventory level requires balancing losses in storage costs, product obsolescence, and capital employed on the one hand against lost sales opportunities due to insufficient product availability on the other hand."

So I am balancing excessive inventory costs against insufficient inventory risks. I have doubts if using "hands" metaphor is appropriate at all. In my home language we have a useful metaphor of a weighing pan:

balancing on the one scale ... against ... on the opposite scale

By using this metaphor we can stuff the scales with numerous things without losing clarity.

Improve this question
12
  • 1
    'On the other hand' has reached the status of 'dead metaphor': very few would think of the physical object when using / reading it. Metaphors are by definition devices using comparators that don't correspond overall.
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 15:39
  • 1
    @EdwinAshworth For me it isn't so dead as to still sound OK when you introduce a third option with "but on the third hand...". To address the question, you can have a list of things "on the one hand, but on the other hand" another list of things.
    – Rosie F
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 15:45
  • 1
    Your sentence ["The most profitable inventory level requires balancing losses in storage costs, product obsolescence, and capital employed on the one hand against lost sales opportunities due to insufficient product availability on the other hand."] would read perfectly well without any references to hands.
    – Richard Kayser
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 15:57
  • @Rosie F The test for deadness is not whether a metaphor may undergo variation idiomatically, but whether people think about the compositionality of the usual version. A tough problem, but not a tender problem. Fly off the handle, but not fly back onto the handle. // I'm addressing 'So I am balancing [A] excessive inventory costs against [B] insufficient inventory risks. I have doubts if using "hands" metaphor is appropriate at all.'
    – Edwin Ashworth
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 17:06
  • @EdwinAshworth You make my point for me. For me, "On the one hand, X, but on the other hand, Y, but on the third hand, Z" sounds off to me not because the three-item variation isn't idiomatic as such, but exactly because the wording reminds me of hands, and that restricts the idiom to two items.
    – Rosie F
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 17:15

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
3

Balancing already suggests scales, so even your home language metaphor is redundant. Similarly, you don't need any hands at all:

The most profitable inventory level requires balancing [this] against [that].

The most profitable inventory level requires balancing losses in storage costs, product obsolescence, and capital employed against lost sales opportunities due to insufficient product availability.

Your [this] and [that], though, complicate the sentence. Maybe you can tighten things up a bit (and move capital employed so employed doesn't try to be a verb):

The most profitable inventory level requires balancing storage cost losses, capital employed, and product obsolescence against lost sales due to insufficient inventory.

Finally, I think this is what you're actually trying to say:

Finding the most profitable inventory level requires weighing storage cost losses, capital employed, and product obsolescence against lost sales due to insufficient inventory.

Improve this answer
4
  • Absolutely right. :) Keep it simple to make it good.
    – Lambie
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 18:14
  • I do not agree, though I am grateful. The goal is to explain the problem to a layman, not to write it down mathematically in the most succinct way. The metaphor is helpful in presenting the inverse relationship, and its structure "hand-hand" allows for the clear separation of the forces that pull us up from those that pull us down.
    – Przemyslaw Remin
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 18:57
  • 1
    @PrzemyslawRemin: If this is for the layperson, it should be simpler yet: Finding the most profitable inventory level requires weighing—on one hand—the cost of acquiring and storing a product that may become outdated, against—on the other—lost sales due to stocking shortages.
    – Tinfoil Hat
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 19:46
  • @TinfoilHat yeap, I like it. Simple words, and structure also contributes to clarity.
    – Przemyslaw Remin
    Commented Aug 5, 2020 at 14:23
0

Perhaps the following?

The most profitable inventory level requires finding the best compromise between losses in storage costs, product obsolescence, capital employed and lost sales opportunities due to insufficient product availability.

Improve this answer
1
  • Thank you for that "compromise". I still think that "weighing pan with scales" is a good metaphor because it states clearly that the gain on one side implies an inevitable loss on the other side. This reversed relation may not be linear or proportional as scales suggest but definitely it informs that you cannot have a gain without a loss. Compromise on the other hand :-) does not bring this "trade off" to mind. However when you wrote it I thought of a "sacrifice." Sacrifice implies hopes for gain but no taint of linearity.
    – Przemyslaw Remin
    Commented Aug 4, 2020 at 18:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .