Magic Techniques: Essential English Expressions to Connect Logic Beyond SVO (Part 2)

Fragments are not logic. On the international stage, they result in immediate disqualification.

I have previously discussed the serious problems caused by the ambiguity of the Japanese language. These include the increase in wasteful power consumption by generative AI, the spread of misinformation, and the amplification of so-called hallucinations. I have also pointed out that the fatal flaw lurking at the root of this is the lack of 'SVO (Subject-Verb-Object)' structure.

Admittedly, this point itself is by no means new. It is not much different from what many English teachers and foreign language textbooks have pointed out repeatedly. What I really want to address here is the second stage that lies beyond that. Once you have mastered SVO, simply by acquiring a limited set of conjunctions and standard structures used daily in English academic papers, as well as expressions like the 'Appendix: Essential Logical Connection Vocabulary List' included at the end of this paper, your logical thinking and debating skills will improve dramatically. This is the very moment where fragments evolve into arguments.

Furthermore, this habituation is not limited to human training alone. Input that is structured with SVO and conjunctions becomes easier for generative AI to interpret, reducing computational load and lessening the energy burden on the environment. Wasteful energy consumption can be reduced by at least 25%, and in some cases, by up to 75% or more. At the same time, you are freed from the stress of verifying ambiguous responses, which also alleviates human cognitive load and technostress. In other words, clarifying logic is an 'energy-saving thinking method' for both society as a whole and the individual.

Introduction: Why Can't Japanese People Write Logically?

In Japanese, conversation can take place without stating the subject. This is because the other party reads the situation or the 'air' and fills in the gaps. This is sufficient for daily life, but the situation is different in international academic papers and English business settings. The moment you bring that premise into those contexts, the text is treated as a 'break in logic.' In the arena of English, connecting subjects and predicates and bridging sentences with conjunctions is the minimum requirement.

A typical example is the Japanese phrase 'Ooi kara abunai' (It's dangerous because there are many). This expression does not state 'what' there are many of. People? Cars? Information? In Japanese, this can be filled in by context, but in English, the subject must always be explicitly stated. If you write 'Because many, so dangerous' with the feeling of a literal translation, it will not function as an English sentence and will be considered a failure of logic.

Do not misunderstand here. You do not fail because your English is poor. The problem is that the bridge connecting cause and effect is missing. In English academic papers, you must specify 'who does what and what happens' in every sentence, and connect sentences using cause-and-effect or contrast. The lifeblood of this is conjunctions such as 'because,' 'therefore,' and 'however.'

'Ooi kara abunai' can also be transformed by naming the subject and providing a connection.
'Because the number of participants is large, the risk of accidents increases. Therefore, additional safety measures must be taken.'

I am using junior high school-level English here. If the meaning feels ambiguous, please check the following words before reading again.

participants: participants
measures: measures

If you reread it after grasping the meaning of the words, the flow of the entire text should become clearly visible. A three-step path from cause to effect and then to countermeasures is established, and a map of logic unfolds before the reader.

What I want to emphasize here is not a total rejection of Japanese ambiguity. The margins and polysemy in literature and daily conversation are actually important cultural assets. However, in academic papers and international negotiations, they become weaknesses. What is needed is not to strip them away, but to reinforce them. Build the skeleton with SVO and circulate the blood with conjunctions. With just this, a text transforms from 'fragments' into an 'argument.'

Please remember. When Shinjiro Koizumi said, 'Climate change issues should be sexy,' laughter leaked out from both inside and outside the country. It exposed that words without logic, like a poem consisting only of strung-together words, move nothing.

Even if you study abroad at Columbia University Graduate School through connections like he did, or hold a position at Stanford University like Yutaka Matsuo, if you remain stuck in a Japanese-style poetic mindset, you will not be accepted in international society. What is needed is not titles or brands, but logic.

In this paper, I will break down real examples of 'logical breaks' that lead to immediate rejection in international academic papers, and then present essential expressions such as 'because,' 'therefore,' 'however,' and 'in conclusion' in a way that you can actually use. The goal is clear. Stop using fragments, place connections, and lead to implications. Engrave this three-step movement into your body. This is the first step toward writing that is internationally accepted.

Chapter 1: Failure Examples in International English Academic Papers That Are Absolutely Unacceptable

What determines the acceptance or rejection of an international academic paper is the presence or absence of 'connections,' even before grammatical correctness. Simply listing facts does not constitute an argument. Here, I will take up typical failures that lead directly to point deductions or disqualification in peer review, and dismantle them one by one to explain why they are problems and how they should be corrected.

The most common initial mistake is the omission of the subject. For example, a fragment like 'This method better. Some problem. Need more test.' does not show who is doing what. Not only is the SVO not established, but the relationship between the sentences is not connected. It is no wonder that a peer reviewer would judge this as 'thinking that is not being operationalized.' If you rewrite this as 'This method is better. However, it still has several problems; therefore, more testing is needed,' the SVO is established, and a flow of 'from contrast to conclusion' is created through the conjunctions.

Next, a common mistake is listing facts while omitting causal relationships. If you only write 'More participants. Risk high,' the relationship between the two is not conveyed to the reader. Correctly, you must explicitly state the cause and effect, such as 'Because the number of participants is large, the risk of accidents increases; therefore, additional safety measures are required,' and then lead to a conclusion.

Ambiguity in contrast is also fatal. A comparison like 'Method A is good. Method B is bad' is unclear about what criteria are being used for judgment. Whether it is cost, accuracy, or speed, if you do not establish an evaluation axis, it is merely subjective. If you write 'Method A reduces cost; however, Method B achieves higher accuracy. Therefore, the choice depends on the project’s priority,' the reader can understand which one to choose under which conditions.

Furthermore, if you overuse demonstratives with a Japanese mindset, references often end up dangling, as in 'This is significant. It shows improvement.' In English, the golden rule is to always anchor them to a noun, such as 'This improvement in recall is significant. It shows that additional negatives increase robustness.'

Another pitfall is relying too heavily on nominalization. If you string together words ending in -tion or -ment, as in 'The implementation of the optimization led to an improvement in performance,' the sentence becomes bloated and loses its impact. If you state it clearly with verbs, such as 'Optimizing the model improved performance,' the sentence becomes instantly clear.

It is also common for an entire paragraph to become a 'box without a topic.' It just lists facts, making it unclear where the argument lies. A good paragraph states its claim at the beginning, handles evidence or counterarguments in the middle, and provides implications at the end. For example, you need to design the paragraph itself as a small argument, such as: 'We show X improves Y. Because Z, the baseline fails in W. However, adding Q mitigates W. Therefore, X is preferable when R holds.'

Citing charts and tables is the same. Writing only 'Table 2 shows the results' is meaningless. If you write, 'Our method outperforms the baseline by 3.1 pp (Table 2); in particular, gains are larger in low-resource settings (Figure 3), which implies better sample efficiency,' you convey not only what is shown but also its implications.

Finally, writing that does not address counterarguments will not gain trust. If you simply write, 'Our model is accurate,' reviewers will inevitably press you on what the limitations are. If you write beforehand, 'Our model is accurate; however, it requires substantial computational resources. Therefore, it suits offline analysis rather than real-time deployment,' your stance of controlling weaknesses and limiting the scope of application will be appreciated.

What reviewers are checking in their minds is simple: Are conjunctions used? Is the SVO structure solid? Are the evaluation criteria explicitly stated? Do demonstratives land on nouns? Are you drowning in nominalizations? Is the paragraph functioning? And are you addressing counterarguments yourself? If you neglect these, your work will be classified as 'fragments' and judged as not worth reading.

There are three minimum checks you can perform before submitting your paper. Does every one of the last three paragraphs contain at least one of 'because,' 'however,' or 'therefore'? Is the claim placed in the first sentence of the paragraph? And is the implication stated clearly at the end of the paragraph using 'therefore' or 'this implies'? Just checking these three things will significantly change the impression of your writing.

Chapter 2: What are the Magic Techniques Beyond SVO?

The SVO (Subject-Verb-Object) triad is the skeleton of an English sentence. However, just lining up bones is nothing more than a static specimen. What transforms an English research paper into a 'body worth reading' are the logical conjunctions that connect the bones and circulate the blood.

Conjunctions breathe life into a paper. 'Because' is a sword that visualizes causes, 'therefore' and 'thus' are staves that lead to conclusions, 'however' and 'nevertheless' are shields that handle counterarguments, and 'in conclusion' and 'overall' are crowns that wrap up the whole. The source of the power to drive logic lies precisely in how you use these four.

For example, if you write, 'Because the dataset is small, the estimate is unstable,' a mere 'description of results' turns into an 'explanation of causality.' Furthermore, if you connect it with 'The estimate is unstable; therefore, we report wide intervals,' the reader is naturally guided from the reason to the conclusion. If you add a contrast like 'The model improves accuracy. However, it increases latency,' the scope of application within the constraints becomes visible. And by concluding with 'In conclusion, our approach is preferable when data are scarce,' the implications the reader should take away become clear.

The effectiveness of conjunctions changes depending on their placement. Within a single sentence, 'because' and 'although' fold in causality or contrast, while between sentences, 'therefore' and 'however' control the flow of the entire paragraph. For example, you can complete it in one sentence with 'Although accuracy improves, inference time doubles,' or you can propel the paragraph forward with 'The baseline fails in low-resource settings; therefore, we adopt data augmentation.'

However, it is not the case that you should overuse conjunctions. Use at most one main conjunction per sentence. Repeating the same connections becomes redundant, so maintain rhythm by appropriately substituting 'therefore' with 'thus,' and 'however' with 'nevertheless.'

And above all, it is important not to hide counterarguments. Reviewers will always look for flaws. If you explicitly state the constraints beforehand, such as 'Our method improves accuracy; however, it requires more memory. Therefore, it suits offline analysis, not edge devices,' the weakness is no longer a weakness, but a design condition.

There is also etiquette for how to state conclusions. Use 'in conclusion' to wrap up a chapter or paper, accompanied by figures or conditions. 'Overall' is for summarizing multiple results, while 'this implies' or 'this suggests' indicate implications but keep the claim modest. Therefore, 'In conclusion, our method is the best' sounds immature; it is correct to add conditions and figures, such as 'In conclusion, our method achieves +3.1 pp accuracy under low-resource settings, which implies better sample efficiency.'

What we see here is the minimal blueprint for logic in English research papers. SVO to set up the bones. Conjunctions to circulate the blood. And paragraphs to arrange the organs. When these three points are in place, the writing transforms from 'fragments' into an 'argument.'

Chapter 3: Essential Phrase Collection for Navigating Logic

A research paper is not a warehouse of information. It is a guide that leads the reader to a destination. Without signposts, no matter how much data you pile up, the reader will remain lost in a maze. Those signs are conjunctions and standard phrases. Here, let's organize the expressions you must master to establish the flow of logic.

First are the phrases that connect cause and effect. The strongest is 'because,' which clearly visualizes the reason. There are also the slightly weaker 'since' and the more ambiguous 'as,' but it is safer to choose 'because' in a research paper. On the side of leading to results, there are 'therefore,' 'thus,' 'hence,' and 'consequently.' In terms of formality, 'consequently' is the most rigid, and 'thus' sounds slightly more colloquial. Which one you choose depends on the context and tone.

Next are comparison and contrast. 'However,' 'nevertheless,' and 'nonetheless' are the basic armaments for contrast. In terms of strength, 'nevertheless' sounds the most powerful. Also, 'in contrast' and 'by contrast' vividly show opposition, and 'whereas' and 'while' can be used to embed contrast within a single sentence. 'On the other hand,' often seen in business documents, is also useful, but avoid ending with just the 'other hand' expression; if possible, pair it with 'on the one hand' for better balance.

Furthermore, expressions indicating enumeration or addition are indispensable. You can clarify the order with 'first', 'second', and 'finally', or add points with 'in addition', 'moreover', and 'furthermore'. What is important is to ensure that parts of speech are consistent in parallel structures, such as 'not only ... but also ...' or 'both A and B'. This keeps the rhythm in your paper from being disrupted.

When grounding abstractions into specifics, 'for example' and 'for instance' are standard. 'Such as' is natural when listing examples after a noun, while 'in particular' and 'specifically' are suitable for focusing. Abbreviations like e.g. and i.e. also exist, but you should avoid mixing them and limit their use to within parentheses.

What is absolutely necessary for a paper is limitation and emphasis. Avoid vague descriptions like 'many' or 'few', and clarify the scope with restrictive expressions such as 'only', 'at least', and 'within'. Instead of repeatedly using 'very' or 'really' for emphasis, replacing them with academic terms like 'substantial', 'marked', or 'pronounced' will elevate the quality of your writing.

On the other hand, hedging is also important in papers so as not to make your claims absolute. 'Demonstrates' is strong, but you can adjust the intensity by lowering it to 'shows', 'indicates', or 'suggests'. Similarly, adjust the degree of certainty with 'must', 'should', 'may', and 'might'. Instead of simply stating 'is', using expressions like 'appears to be' or 'is consistent with' will soften the impression on reviewers.

Finally, there are phrases to convey conclusions and implications. 'In conclusion', 'to summarize', and 'overall' are used for general summaries, while 'this implies' and 'this suggests' are used for modest implications. The phrase 'Taken together, ...' is also useful when bundling results. The important thing is to always end paragraphs or chapters with these expressions to clearly show the reader 'what they should take away'.

What you should remember when writing a paper is that these phrases are not mere decorations, but arrows for the reader. Arrows indicating cause and effect, contrast, enumeration, and examples. And finally, the arrow leading to the conclusion. Even if a sentence is ordinary, if these arrows are placed correctly, the entire text functions as a map.

Chapter 4: The Moment the Magic Works: A Comparison with Japanese

Japanese is supported by a culture of omission. Even if you only say 'It's dangerous because there are many,' the other person will automatically supplement the context to understand whether there are many people, many cars, or much information. However, if you apply this sense directly to English, the writing will break down. If you write 'Because many, so dangerous,' the reader will have no way to grasp the meaning. Both the cause and the result remain fragmented, and the value as a paper is zero.

So, what should you do? The answer is simple. Place the subject, place the connection, and state your conclusion using an evaluation axis. For example, if you are targeting people, writing 'Because the number of participants is large, the risk of accidents increases; therefore, additional safety measures are required' makes the progression from cause to result and then to countermeasures look as straight as a syllogism.

The Japanese phrase 'Data is small. So, just for reference' is the same. If translated literally, it becomes 'Data small. Just reference,' which looks like a child's scribble to an English speaker. However, if you write 'Since the dataset is small, the results should be treated as preliminary; in particular, further validation is necessary,' it changes into an expression that a reviewer can accept. Here, the key is to replace the vague phrase 'just for reference' with the academic term 'preliminary'.

Also, the Japanese phrase 'Method A is good. But B is not bad either' does not work in English. This is because if you only say 'good' or 'bad', the criteria are not visible. Therefore, if you clearly state the evaluation axis by writing 'Method A reduces cost; however, Method B achieves higher accuracy. Therefore, the choice depends on the project’s priority,' the reader can make a decision based on whether they prioritize cost or accuracy.

The expression 'We got results. But they are subtle' is similar. If translated literally, it would be 'We got results, but they are so-so.' However, 'so-so' is impossible in a paper. By writing 'We obtained statistically significant results; however, the effect size is modest; therefore, larger samples are needed to assess practical impact,' you can accurately convey the difference between statistical significance and practical impact.

There is no end to examples of this kind. 'That is not essential,' 'Maybe it's effective,' 'Better than doing nothing,' 'Seems to be correlated somehow'—all of these make sense in Japanese, but they are all failures in an English paper. What they all have in common is the fact that writing only turns into argumentation when you place the subject, connect the logic, and state your conclusion using an evaluation axis.

Japanese elliptical sentences are excellent as raw material. This is because their sharp brevity becomes the starting point for building a logical framework during the translation or rewriting stage. That is why what is important is not mere literal translation, but the consciousness of 'translating omission into logic.' Without destroying the ambiguity of Japanese, convert it into the logical structure of English. If you can do that, it becomes possible to bring Japanese ideas into the world of international papers.

Chapter 5: Magic Becomes Real Through Practice: A Routine to Internalize Connections

Conjunctions are similar to spells. If you only know them in your head, they will not come out of your mouth in a pinch. Whether you are responding to reviewer comments, discussing in a meeting, or standing in a place of international negotiation, the quality of what you convey changes depending on whether you can immediately produce 'because', 'however', and 'therefore'. In this chapter, I will specifically show practice methods to turn this 'magic' into a reflex.

Fifteen minutes a day is enough. Write three fragments in Japanese and reconstruct them in English into 'cause → result → implication.' For example, rewrite 'It's dangerous because there are many' into 'Because the number is large, the risk increases; therefore, countermeasures are required.' It is a short task, but if you make this a daily routine, connecting will naturally become a habit.

The next day, practice contrast. List Method A and Method B, and write that one is strong in cost while the other is superior in accuracy. And finally, close with 'Therefore, the choice depends on the project’s priority.' The moment your logic becomes dual-wielding, the reader will no longer lose sight of the judgment axis.

Dedicate another day to detoxing nominalization. Replace 'The implementation of the optimization led to an improvement in performance' with 'Optimizing the model improved performance.' Be careful if three or more '-tion' words are lined up. The writing will immediately become heavy and lose the power of the verb.

Even more important is the habit of placing counterarguments first. Reviewers will not trust you if you only write 'Our method is accurate.' If you write 'Our method is accurate; however, it requires substantial resources. Therefore, it suits offline analysis rather than real-time deployment,' your weakness turns into a design condition. By offering your shield yourself, trust is born.

Practicing with charts and graphs is also effective. Instead of simply ending with 'Table 2 shows the results.', write 'Our method outperforms the baseline by 3.1 pp (Table 2); in particular, gains are larger in low-resource settings (Figure 3), which implies better sample efficiency.' Present the evidence and lead to the implication. Once you master this pattern, you can incorporate any experimental result into your logic.

If you rotate through these exercises for a week, your writing style will definitely change. State your claim at the beginning of the paragraph, use 'because' or 'however' in the middle, and conclude with 'therefore' at the end. As you repeat this, the external logic will change your internal thinking. Eventually, when you think in Japanese, 'so what?', 'but what?', and 'therefore what should I do?' will naturally come to mind. This is not just English learning; it is a transformation of thinking itself.

In summary, build the skeleton with SVO, circulate the blood with conjunctions, and arrange the organs with paragraphs. If you internalize this pattern through daily practice, your logic will be trained like a muscle. Before you know it, your writing will no longer be 'fragments' but will reach the reader as an 'argument'.

Chapter 6: How to Cross the Japanese Barrier: Operational Guidelines for Bilingual Thinking

Japanese is a language that treats ambiguity as a virtue. However, in international papers and negotiations, you are required to 'establish a subject, connect with causality, and conclude with implications.' The moment you lack this, your writing falls into fragments.

That is why the application of bilingual thinking is necessary. While maintaining the Japanese sensibility, build the skeleton with SVO, circulate the blood with connections, and add muscle with evaluation axes. If you make a habit of the 'Japanese → English → Japanese' double loop—translating from Japanese to English and then re-importing into Japanese—you can gain logical strength while utilizing ambiguity.

For papers, place your claim at the beginning of the paragraph, develop the evidence in the body, and show implications at the end. For business, put the conclusion first and add conditions and actions. In meetings, simply adhering to 'reason → consequence → scope of application' orally will increase your persuasiveness.

The health check to measure the quality of your writing is simple. Are 'because', 'therefore', and 'however' used in every paragraph? Are you avoiding escaping into 'good' or 'bad' and instead asserting with measurable axes? Are you presenting implications at the end of the paragraph? If you confirm these three points, your writing will definitely become stronger.

Finally, I want to emphasize this once more. You do not need to let go of the richness of Japanese. What is needed is reinforcement. If you provide bones and blood, fragments will turn into arguments. The wall is not an obstacle but a door. From the moment you learn how to knock, the path will open.

Appendix: Essential Vocabulary for Logical Connection

What is indispensable in English papers and international negotiations are 'connecting words' that link sentences and clarify the flow of logic. Here, I have organized the essential expressions you should at least master. They are categorized by usage for easy memorization.

1. Causality (indicating reasons)
・because: because
　Because the dataset is small, the results are unstable.
(Since the data is small, the results are unstable.)
・since: because (slightly weaker)
・as: because (tends toward ambiguity)

2. Consequence (leading to results/conclusions)
・therefore: therefore
　The model is complex; therefore, training takes longer.
(The model is complex. Therefore, training takes time.)
・thus: therefore (slightly colloquial)
・hence: therefore (slightly formal)
・consequently: as a result (most formal)

3. Contrast (indicating opposition/constraints)
・however: however
　The method is accurate; however, it requires more memory.
(The method is accurate. However, it requires more memory.)
・nevertheless / nonetheless: nevertheless
・although / though: although (used within a single sentence)
・whereas / while: while (contrast within a single sentence)

4. Enumeration/Addition
・in addition: furthermore
・moreover / furthermore: furthermore
・first, second, finally: standard expressions indicating order

5. Exemplification/Focusing
・for example / for instance: for example
・such as: such as
・in particular / specifically: in particular

6. Summary/Conclusion
・in conclusion: in conclusion
　In conclusion, practice is the key to improvement.
(In conclusion, practice is the key to improvement.)
・overall: overall
・to summarize: to summarize
・this implies / this suggests: this means / suggests

Learning Points
1. because → reason
2. however → contrast
3. therefore → conclusion
4. in conclusion → summary

Just by being able to use these 'four pillars', your writing will change from fragments to arguments. After that, you can gradually learn additional expressions depending on the situation.

Rintaro Takechi