0

I'm writing a technical report and one of the sentences is:

Assuming otherwise would render A a function of B.

With the intention to say that if we would assume otherwise, A would be a function of B. Is this a proper use the word render, or should I use something align of:

Assuming otherwise results in A being a function of B.

Edit:

According to suggestions this might be better:

Without this assumptions A becomes a function of B.

  • Prior to reading your explanation, the first sentence was completely impenetrable to me, and indeed ungrammatical, as I took the wrong garden path ([Assuming] [that] [otherwise would]...). The second one is at least easier to parse, but it's clumsy. Perhaps it makes better sense in context, but since no context has been provided I vote for rewriting from scratch. – RegDwigнt Dec 4 '14 at 10:59
  • Out of context it's hard to say, but I would lean toward a less "elegant" statement, towards something more "workmanlike". Eg, "If we do not assume Q then factor X leads to the conclusion that A must be a function of B." (Where "must be" might instead be written as "should be" or "would be assumed to be", depending on the intent). – Hot Licks Dec 4 '14 at 13:27
  • 2
    I see no problem with the original sentence: Dictionary.com "to cause to be or become". Is render used this way in your technical field? That should be your guide. – Wayfaring Stranger Dec 4 '14 at 13:43
2

The use of render here seems a bit inexact to me, especially if we take it literally to mean "cause to be or become," as in Wayfaring Stranger's definition above. Consider this assertion:

Assuming dachshunds are venomous would render Schnitzel [an imaginary pet dachshund] dangerous.

It seems to me that the conclusion of this sentence rather overstates the capacity of the assumption to transform Schnitzel into a life-threatening pet. The idea that the statement means to express is that making the initial assumption about dachshunds' venomousness would inevitably lead to a particular logical conclusion about Schnitzel's dangerousness, not that the simple act of making the assumption would cause that logical end result to be or become a fact in reality.

Logically, assuming venomousness does not cause dangerousness—and that would be true as a matter of logic even if we replaced dachshunds with diamondback rattlesnakes and "Schnitzel [an imaginary pet dachshund]" with "Tinkerbell [an imaginary pet diamondback rattlesnake]."

I can avoid the misleading aspect of my original assertion by rewording it along these lines:

If the assumption that dachshunds are venomous were true, Schnitzel would be dangerous.

Or this way:

If the assumption that dachshunds are venomous were adopted, it would logically follow that Schnitzel must be dangerous.

Or this way:

Under the assumption that dachshunds are venomous, Schnitzel would be dangerous.

Likewise in the OP's example, we could say

If any other assumption were adopted, A would logically have to be a function of B.

Or more simply,

Under any other assumption, A would be a function of B.

I realize that it is quite common to use render in the loose fashion that the OP's example does, but I would avoid it in this instance—in part because a technically more accurate alternative wording that omits render and yet doesn't sound especially stiff or formal is available, and in part because a technical report tracing the logical conclusions that follow from particular assumptions is likely to be held to an unusually high standard of accuracy and exactitude.

| improve this answer | |
  • Thank you for you're answer I really like the approach Under the assumption that dachshunds are venomous, Schnitzel would be dangerous. I think this is less clumsy – magu_ Dec 5 '14 at 9:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.