Catastrophic Grammar in Describing Catastrophic Risk - Brooks et al., Section 16.1

[G. Stolyarov II]

Greetings.

While preparing practice problems for the Brooks et al. paper, I encountered the following sentence in Section 16.1 (page 69): “Article 104 provides that for risks arising from catastrophic geographic specifications may be used whether or not an insurance undertaking uses an internal model for SCR purposes, it is likely to use catastrophic models for ORSA and other risk management purposes.”

There are several grammatical flaws in this sentence, which obscure the meaning. I would like to see if others on this forum agree with my understanding of how the sentence should read:

My version: “Article 104 provides that for risks arising from catastrophes, geographic specifications may be used. Whether or not an insurance undertaking uses an internal model for SCR purposes, it is likely to use catastrophic models for ORSA and other risk-management purposes.”

I would be interested in your thoughts.

Sincerely,
G. Stolyarov II, CPCU, ARe, ARC, AIS, AIE

[campbell]

My thought is that they should've gotten a better editor.

[Vorian Atreides]

My thought is that they should've gotten a better editor peer reviewer.
IFYP. I'm pretty sure that many editors wouldn't understand the technical aspects of the paper.

[campbell]

IFYP. I'm pretty sure that many editors wouldn't understand the technical aspects of the paper.

A peer reviewer wouldn't fix the grammar. An editor would.

[Vorian Atreides]

A peer reviewer wouldn't fix the grammar. An editor would.
But wouldn't the peer review note the confusing presentation of the sentence(s) in question? Something that an editor may not catch but a peer reviewer would at least point out to the author?

[Vorian Atreides]

Put another way, while the OP is attributing the flaw to poor grammar, I'm pointing to poor (or confusing) word choice on the part of the author.

[campbell]

But wouldn't the peer review note the confusing presentation of the sentence(s) in question? Something that an editor may not catch but a peer reviewer would at least point out to the author?

I actually do this sort of thing for my day job (that is, peer review articles, etc., going out.)

When one peer reviews, generally one is not checking filler sentences. One is looking for actual meaty content. The assumption is that the professional editors that one employs will fix grammar.

And, btw, when our professional editors find something that they cannot fix b/c they have no idea what we were getting at... they ask us directly. Then it gets fixed.

[Vorian Atreides]

I actually do this sort of thing for my day job (that is, peer review articles, etc., going out.)

When one peer reviews, generally one is not checking filler sentences. One is looking for actual meaty content. The assumption is that the professional editors that one employs will fix grammar.

And, btw, when our professional editors find something that they cannot fix b/c they have no idea what we were getting at... they ask us directly. Then it gets fixed.
As I said, get a better peer reviewer. ;-)

Perhaps hire some CAS students, they're great at finding stuff like this. But this is still good to know; thanks for sharing. :-P

[campbell]

When I first started out at the job, I fixed way too many grammar errors. Once I hit about the 10th paper I had to review, I realized it was not a cost-effective use of my time to do grammar nitpicks, given we had people paid to do that sort of thing.

[Vorian Atreides]

When I first started out at the job, I fixed way too many grammar errors. Once I hit about the 10th paper I had to review, I realized it was not a cost-effective use of my time to do grammar nitpicks, given we had people paid to do that sort of thing.
Hence your conversion to the Grammar Zombie?

:shrug:

[campbell]

I believe that Zombie came a-calling before I got this job.