Grammar Moses: On fuzzy math and pleading the Fifth

Rare is the journalist who has more than a passing familiarity with anything as complicated as cross multiplication.

Rarer still, I surmise, is the advertising copy writer who understands math.

I base that assumption solely on the radio advertisings I hear.

I took a great deal of mathematics in high school and college, even electing to spend one summer learning calculus in a hot box known as Prospect High School.

One of my college journalism professors wrote an inspiring little book titled "Lying With Statistics."

Reader Arthur Golub of Streamwood and I both remember a thing or two about math and how it can be twisted almost without notice to make the writer's point - or how careless word use can muddy the message.

I apologize for what follows. This will require actual math.

Arthur says it this way: "If I have six apples, and someone else has three times more, then he has 18 more and thus a total of 24."

Bravo, Arthur.

I often hear advertisements such as this: "Our widgets last four times longer than our competitors' widgets. At more than three times less cost."

Confused? I would bet you are.

Whether innocently or by design - I make no judgments here - a copy writer may conflate variations of "as much as" and "more than" in an ad.

"More than" sounds better, but it is not synonymous with "as much as."

Let's parse that advertising message.

If the product you already have lasts five hours and the new product lasts four times longer, then you start with the five hours the existing one lasts plus four more five-hour increments. That's 25 hours.

The reality generally is the new product lasts four times "as long as" the existing one. And that's simply four times five, or just 20 hours.

Now, if it costs three times less ... well, that makes no logical sense. I suspect what the advertiser is trying to say here is that it costs a third of what your product costs. So if the existing product is $15, then the new product costs $5.

However, it could be that the new product costs a third less than the existing one. In that case, it would cost $10.

With such illogical phrasing, you simply don't know.

So the new product could last for 20 or 25 hours and cost either $5 or $10. Best case scenario: You're paying a buck for five hours of use. Worst case: It will cost you a buck for every two hours. That's quite a disparity.

My advice: When you're ready to buy, make sure you understand exactly what the deal is.

I plead the Fifth

Don Buck of Wheaton wrote to say he is sad to see the word "pled" go.

"To say, 'He pleaded guilty' seems so awkward versus 'He pled guilty,' " Don wrote.

I'm sorry to tell you this, Don, but while "pled" is common parlance, The Associated Press Stylebook has held for many, many years that we are not to use the colloquial past tense form of "to plead." Instead, we in newspaperland say "pleaded."

At least, we are supposed to.

Of course, if you're not writing for a newspaper then you are free to use "pled" because people will understand what you mean.

If you were wondering about the heading of this section, I am aware that one does not "plead the Fifth" in court. One invokes the Fifth Amendment privilege to avoid self-incrimination.

To, too, two

Gary Koca of Pingree Grove says he is frustrated by people who mix up "to," "too" and "two."

The word "to" has myriad definitions, but it's easy to differentiate from its sound-alike brethren because they have fewer definitions.

Generally speaking:

Two = a pair.

Too = also.

To = in a direction toward.

The two of us are going to the store, too.

Write carefully!

• Jim Baumann is assistant vice president/managing editor of the Daily Herald. Write him at jbaumann@dailyherald.com. Put Grammar Moses in the subject line. You also can follow or friend Jim on social media at facebook.com/baumannjim.