[supercat]

That does evidence the liklihood of critical confusion. But it doesn't prove that Mae was critically confused. And even though the change "is material," it isn't material for Mae, because she didn't check that box.

When faced with a multiple-choice selection, the wording of selections not chosen will often influence people's interpretation of the question asked. If the form had the correct wording for choice #2, the selection posed thereby would seem odd to a careful reader. Such a person would then try to figure out how the form could be interpreted so that selection #2 made sense, and would then realize that the form as formatted is horribly ambiguous.

The parenthetical (check the option desired) is not part of the meaning of the main text; if the person filling out the form checks an option, it is clear that they understood the intended meaning even in the absense of such language. But the other change in language is on a material part of the form, and as such changes its meaning.

As a couple of examples where unchecked box labels can change the meaning of checked boxes, consider the following:

Marital status: ( ) Single ( ) Married

versus

Marital status: ( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Widowed ( ) Divorced ( ) Separated

or

Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)

• Yes
• No, I won't want the risk--I'll take the CDW

versus

Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)

• Yes
• No, I won't want the CDW--I'll take the risk.

Note that in the latter case, the meaning of the "yes" option is completely changed by the wording of the "no" option.

[Cboldt]

I see your point, but your last example is a crappy "question" because in each case, the selection has two qestions, and a person doesn't know for sure which question is being answered!

Would you like to purchase a CDW? (If you don't you could be liable for thousands of dollars in case of an accident. Are you sure you want to take that risk?)

So, which question am I answering? Would you like to purchase a CDW?, or Are you sure you want to take that risk?.

In contract, an important element to a finding of "contract" is a meeting of the minds. The words on paper usually hold, and their direct meaning is what is found. All that "plain English" requirement for property contracts? Driven because people were confused. Were the old contracts tossed out? Nope. You sign it, you live with it.

We agree completely that the language of the Living Will is confusing (at best). And I agree that the wording of unchecked boxes, heck ALL of the wording on a page, even parenthetical distractions, can mislead a reader. I know from experience that short, self-contained, unambiguous and unequivocal statements are the most "effective" form of communication. THey are the most likely to result in accurate communication of an idea or instruction. THis model Living Will was obviously written by a lawyer.

I'm a cynic. I don't expect changes for the better. Not coming from legislatures, not coming from courts. The people have to wise themselves up. They need to get educated, self-reliant, and moral. Change for the better comes from the bottom, up. A society that is run from the top down will last about as long as a company that is run that way.