3

In technical writing, if someone writes as his first sentence in a "conceptual introduction"...

  1. One can reconstruct a 3D wireframe model by fixing vertices where relevant edges meet.
  2. It can be reconstructed a 3D wireframe model by fixing vertices where relevant edges meet.
  3. A 3D wireframe model can be reconstructed by fixing vertices where relevant edges meet.

What would be most suitable (1, 2 , 3 or something else), or acceptable to the scientific community?

Is there any rule to be followed, especially in a situation like a conceptual introduction?

  • 3
    In this case, #3 is the best of the three, and that would be true even outside of technical writing. By the way, are you perchance doing research with niro? – J.R. Mar 23 '13 at 7:40
  • @J.R. we are in a same team. – gnp Mar 23 '13 at 10:19
3

I think the rule of thumb is to remove anything that is not necessary from all sentences.

Sentence (2) is not grammatical.

In sentence (1) it is not necessary to indicate who is doing the reconstruction (One can reconstruct) and for that reason (A ... model can be reconstructed) is better.

But in sentence (3) edges only become relevant when they meet, so saying relevant is not necessary.

A 3D wireframe model can be reconstructed by fixing vertices at all edge intersections.

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.