This leads me to urge that, on the Key Line level, you try to avoid using a deductive argument, and strive instead always to present your message inductively. Why? Because it is easier on the reader.

这让我建议，在主线层面上，尽量避免使用演绎推理，而是努力用归纳推理来表达信息。为什么？因为这样对读者更友好。

Let’s look at what you force the reader to do when you ask him to absorb a deductively organized report. Suppose you wish to tell him that he must change in some way. Your argument would look something like this:

让我们看看，当你要求读者接受一个演绎结构的报告时，会让他们做些什么。假设你想告诉他，他必须以某种方式改变。你的论证可能是这样的：

• You must change
  你必须改变

• Here’s what is going wrong
  这是出了什么问题

• Here’s what is causing it
  这是问题的原因

• Therefore, here’s what you should do about it
  因此，这是你需要做的事情

To absorb your reasoning, the reader must first take in and hold the A-B-Cs of what is going wrong. I agree this is not a difficult task, but then you ask him to take the first A of what is going wrong, bring it over and relate it to the second A of what is causing it, and then hold that in his head while you make the same match for the Bs and Cs.

为了理解你的推理，读者必须首先接受并记住问题的A-B-C要素。我同意这并不难，但随后你要求他拿出第一个问题的A，将其与问题原因的第二个A关联起来，然后在脑海中保留这一点，同时对B和C进行相同的匹配。

Next, you ask him to repeat the process, this time tying the first A of what is going wrong to the second A of what is causing it, and hauling the whole cartload to hitch to the third A of what to do about it. And the same with the Bs and Cs.

接着，你要求他重复这一过程，这次是将问题的第一个A与原因的第二个A关联起来，然后将所有内容联系到第三个A，也就是如何解决问题上。同样的过程还需要应用于B和C。

Not only do you make the reader wait a very long time to find out what he should do Monday morning, you also force him to re-enact your entire problem-solving process before he receives his reward.

你不仅让读者花很长时间去弄清楚他在周一早上应该做什么，还强迫他在得到答案之前重新经历你的整个问题解决过程。

It is almost as if you’re saying to him, ‘I worked extremely hard to get this answer, and I’m going to make sure you know it.’ How much easier on everybody were you simply to present the same message inductively:

这几乎就像是在对他说，“我费了很大的劲才得出这个结论，我一定要让你知道。”而如果你以归纳的方式传达同样的信息，那将对每个人都更轻松：

• You must change
  你必须改变

• How?
  如何改变？

• A, B, C

Here, instead of answering the ‘Why?’ question first and the ‘How?’ question second, you simply reverse the order.

在这里，你并不是先回答“为什么”然后再回答“如何”，而是直接反转顺序。

And now, while you may indeed have deductive arguments at the lower levels, still you have answered the reader’s major question directly, with clear fences in your thinking between subject areas, and all information on each subject in one place.

现在，尽管在更低的层次上你可能仍然有演绎推理，但你已经直接回答了读者的主要问题，并在不同主题领域之间清晰划分，同时将每个主题的信息集中在一起。

To explain it another way, at the end of the problem-solving process, you will have come up with a set of ideas that can be sorted onto a Recommendation Worksheet like that shown in Exhibit 20.

换一种方式解释，在问题解决过程结束时，你将会得出一系列想法，可以整理到如图表20所示的推荐工作表上。

This permits you to visualize the fact that you have gathered findings that led you to draw conclusions from which you determined recommendations.

这可以让你直观地看到，你已经收集的发现引出了结论，而这些结论又让你提出了建议。

In writing to recommend action, you will never give findings that do not lead to conclusions, nor state conclusions that are not based on findings.

在书写行动建议时，你绝不会提出不会导致结论的发现，也不会给出没有根据的结论。

For example, sales are off 40% (finding) because our competitor added a new device to his product.

例如，销量下降了40%（发现），因为我们的竞争对手为其产品增加了一个新设备。

Now, you can present this message deductively, one column at a time:

• Sales are off 40%

• They are off because of competitive changes

• Therefore, I recommend we make similar changes

现在，你可以以演绎的方式逐栏展示这一信息：

• 销量下降了40%

• 下降是因为竞争发生了变化

• 因此，我建议我们做出类似改变

Or you can simply turn the whole thing 90 degrees to the left and begin with the recommendation:

或者，你可以将整个内容向左旋转90度，从建议开始：

We must redesign to regain position. Competition has done so, resulting in a 40% loss of our market share.

我们必须重新设计以重获市场地位。竞争对手这样做了，导致我们市场份额下降了40%。

The issue here is whether it is better to tell the reader why he should change and then how to go about it, or that he should change and why.

这里的问题是，是先告诉读者他为什么要改变，然后再告诉他如何改变，还是先告诉他应该改变，再解释为什么。

As a rule of thumb, it is always better to present the action before the argument, since that is what the reader cares about, unless you face one of those rare cases in which it is the argument he really cares about.

通常来说，最好先提出行动建议，再提出论证，因为行动是读者真正关心的，除非遇到少数特殊情况，读者真正关心的是论证。

I can think of only two situations in which the argument might be more important to the reader than the action:

我能想到的只有两种情况，论证可能比行动对读者更重要：

• If he is going to disagree strongly with your conclusion, so you must prepare him to accept it.
  如果他可能会强烈反对你的结论，那么你需要为让他接受结论做好铺垫。

• If he is incapable of understanding the action without prior explanation (as in a paper on how to do risk analysis), so that you must give him the reasoning that underlies it.
  如果他在没有解释的情况下无法理解行动（例如关于如何进行风险分析的论文），那么你必须提供支撑行动的推理。

Few of the recipients of business documents fall into either class, however, so that in general you will find yourself wanting to structure the Key Line of your pyramid to form an inductive argument.

然而，商业文档的接收者很少属于这两类，因此通常你会发现自己倾向于将金字塔的主线结构成一个归纳论证。

Note that I am talking only about the Key Line here, and not about lower levels. Deductive arguments are very easy to absorb if they reach you directly:

请注意，我这里只是讨论主线，而不是更低的层次。如果演绎论证能够直接呈现，它们是非常容易被理解的：

• Birds fly → I am a bird → Therefore, I fly
  鸟会飞 → 我是鸟 → 因此，我会飞

When, however, you must plough through 10 or 12 pages between the first point and the second, and between the second and the third, then they lose their instant clarity.

然而，如果在第一个观点和第二个观点之间，或者第二个观点和第三个观点之间，你需要翻阅10到12页，那么它们就会失去原本的清晰性。

Consequently, you want to push deductive reasoning as low in the pyramid as possible, to limit intervening information to the minimum.

因此，你希望将演绎推理尽可能降低到金字塔的底层，以将干扰信息限制到最低程度。

At the paragraph level, deductive arguments are lovely, and present an easy-to-follow flow. But inductive reasoning is always easier to absorb at higher levels.

在段落层面，演绎论证是很出色的，能够呈现出易于理解的逻辑流动。然而，在更高的层次上，归纳推理总是更容易被吸收。

To explain it in another way, at the end of the problem-solving process, you will have come up with a set of ideas that can be sorted onto a Recommendation Worksheet like that shown in Exhibit 20.

换一种方式解释，在问题解决过程结束时，你将会得出一系列想法，可以整理到如图表20所示的“建议工作表”上。

This permits you to visualize the fact that you have gathered findings that led you to draw conclusions from which you determined recommendations.

这可以让你直观地看到，你已经收集了发现，这些发现引出了结论，而这些结论进一步形成了建议。

In writing to recommend action, you will never give findings that do not lead to conclusions, nor state conclusions that are not based on findings.

在撰写行动建议时，你绝不会提出不会导致结论的发现，也不会提出没有根据的结论。

The conclusions generally state the problem that the recommendations solve. Consequently, the effect of the recommendation is to solve the problem you concluded was there.

结论通常陈述建议所要解决的问题。因此，建议的作用是解决你得出的那个问题。

For example, sales are off 40% (finding) because our competitor added a new device to his product.

例如，销量下降了40%（发现），因为我们的竞争对手在其产品中增加了一种新设备。

Now, you can present this message deductively, one column at a time:

• Sales are off 40%.

• They are off because of competitive changes.

• Therefore, I recommend we make similar changes.

现在，你可以逐列以演绎方式展示这一信息：

• 销量下降了40%。

• 原因是竞争的变化。

• 因此，我建议我们也进行类似的改变。

Or you can simply turn the whole thing 90 degrees to the left and begin with the recommendation:

或者，你可以将整个内容向左旋转90度，从建议开始：

We must redesign to regain position. Competition has done so, resulting in a 40% loss of our market share.

我们必须重新设计以恢复市场地位。竞争对手已经这样做了，这导致了我们40%的市场份额损失。

The issue here is whether it is better to tell the reader why he should change and then how to go about it, or that he should change and why.

这里的问题是，是先告诉读者为什么他需要改变，然后再告诉他如何改变，还是先告诉他应该改变，再解释为什么。

As a rule of thumb, it is always better to present the action before the argument, since that is what the reader cares about, unless you face one of those rare cases in which it is the argument he really cares about.

通常来说，最好先提出行动建议，再提出论证，因为行动才是读者真正关心的内容，除非遇到那些少见的情况，即论证才是读者真正关心的。

I can think of only two situations in which the argument might be more important to the reader than the action:

• If he is going to disagree strongly with your conclusion, so you must prepare him to accept it.

• If he is incapable of understanding the action without prior explanation (as in a paper on how to do risk analysis), so that you must give him the reasoning that underlies it.

我能想到的只有两种情况，论证可能比行动对读者更重要：

• 如果他可能会强烈反对你的结论，因此你需要为让他接受结论做好铺垫。

• 如果在没有解释的情况下，他无法理解行动（例如在关于如何进行风险分析的论文中），那么你必须提供支持行动的推理。

Few of the recipients of business documents fall into either class, however, so that in general you will find yourself wanting to structure the Key Line of your pyramid to form an inductive argument.

然而，商业文档的接收者很少属于这两类，因此通常你会发现自己倾向于将金字塔的主线结构成一个归纳论证。

Note that I am talking only about the Key Line here, and not about lower levels. Deductive arguments are very easy to absorb if they reach you directly:

• Birds fly → I am a bird → Therefore, I fly

请注意，我这里只是在讨论主线，而不是更低的层次。如果演绎论证可以直接呈现，它们是非常容易被理解的：

• 鸟会飞 → 我是鸟 → 因此，我会飞

When, however, you must plough through 10 or 12 pages between the first point and the second, and between the second and the third, then they lose their instant clarity.

然而，如果在第一个观点和第二个观点之间，或者第二个观点和第三个观点之间，你需要翻阅10到12页内容，那么论证就会失去原有的清晰性。

Consequently, you want to push deductive reasoning as low in the pyramid as possible, to limit intervening information to the minimum.

因此，你需要将演绎推理尽可能放在金字塔的底层，以尽量减少干扰信息。

At the paragraph level, deductive arguments are lovely, and present an easy-to-follow flow. But inductive reasoning is always easier to absorb at higher levels.

在段落层面，演绎论证非常出色，能够展现出清晰易懂的逻辑流程。然而，在更高的层次上，归纳推理总是更容易被接受。