Consider the following two wordings of the same sentence of a report I am writing: It is calculated that removal of these units will save $11,800 per year in fan energy, assuming they are operating at 2” w.c. of static pressure (common for HEPA circulation units) and 50% fan efficiency, and the cost of electricity is $0.12 per kWh. It is calculated that if they are operating at 2” w.c. of static pressure (common for HEPA circulation units) and 50% fan efficiency, removal of these units will save $11,800 per year in fan energy, at a cost of electricity of $0.12 per kWh. The first version is the “corrected” version a boss marked-up and the second version is the original. It is a very common criticism of my writing that I often arrange sentences backwards and I’ve heard the same complaint from multiple superiors. Here’s the thing: talking to younger engineers on my level and below and observing their writing styles, my arrangement is often thought to be equivalent or better. So, is there an accepted right and wrong structure? Is it an age/style thing (caveat, the boss who QC’d this particular report is only 10 years older than me)? Does it matter? I do have a logic behind this sentence structure: 1. Putting the assumptions/caveats before the conclusions makes it harder to miss them when skimming. It forces people to read the entire sentence. 2. The writing order is a reflection of the order of problem-solving steps: problem->assumptions->calculations->results. That order is also used in the report as a whole: Introduction/Problem->Assumptions->Analysis->Conclusions. Opinions?