In rational discourse, when I make a claim that "X is likely to have effect Y", I tend to add that "Conversely, less of X is likely to have less effect Y" or something like that.
It can seem redundant at first, but in almost all cases it really isn't. Regardless of the level of decision-making throughout my projects at SSD, strategic or tactical, I've found it more and more essential to say because it's human nature to assume that the converse of "↑X → ↑Y", by default, is "↓X → ↓Y". That's not necessarily true.
What is the opposite of an increase in X, exactly? Is it a decrease in X? Or is it the absence of the increase? Might it be a false dichotomy to begin with?
Let's say we're developing a web-based training that follows a standard sequence of watching a demonstration, followed by hands-on practice. And let's say there's a minimum threshold of interactive learning hours necessary to positively improve performance. It's plausible that once this threshold is met, further increases continue to benefit performance, but decreases do not significantly harm it until it drops below the threshold.
It's a very generic example of an instructional design choice that entails threshold effects or a non-linear relationship, like that between interactive learning hours and performance, but when dichotomized (add vs. subtract X) disguises it as a linear relationship. In a different scenario, a small increase in interactive learning might significantly boost performance, but beyond a certain point, additional hours don't contribute as much to further improvement. Chances are, X and Y lie somewhere on an S-curve, and your particular design choice is represented by a certain inflection point on that curve.
By adding a "converse statement", you're essentially clarifying the shape of that curve. And it has the added benefit of further inviting questions about, say, what conditions must be in place to change the nature of the X/Y relationship (which is so fundamental to closing performance gaps). For example, some traditional training experiences integrate rewards systems like swag-redeemable coins (the X) in order to promote learner engagement (the Y), especially when the training is long. I get the logic on the surface, but what is the implication for the converse? That the absence of a reward means lower engagement? Without further clarification, it's a natural conclusion to draw (in which case having a rewards system is objectively more desirable than not). On the other hand, an alternate converse take is that choosing not to include a swag economy is far more likely to keep learners intrinsically motivated than extrinsically motivated, which is desirable because intrinsic motivation is more stable, reliable, and long-lasting than extrinsic motivation. And in either case, this all assumes that rewards have any effect to begin with! So then what conditions have to be in place for a rewards system to promote engagement, whether driven intrinsically or extrinsically? You see where I'm going with this.
All that to say, adding converse statements do way more than just reframe an instructional design choice in a seemingly repetitive way. At the very least, it clarifies the consequences of abstaining from action. More significantly, even if no further discussion actually takes place, it's at least likely to reveal the real-world complexities underlying many factors of design.
Here are some more examples of converse statements in instructional design off the top of my head:
e.g. Use of Multimedia in Training Materials
Incorporating animated multimedia (e.g. videos, GIF animations) instead of static images into training materials enhances learner understanding. Conversely, sticking with static images means that enhancing learner understanding depends more on how effectively we deconstruct a complex task into its component steps.
e.g. Frequency of Assessments
Frequent assessments can help to reinforce learning by providing regular feedback. Conversely, reducing the frequency of assessments means fewer feedback opportunities. However, we could achieve a similar level of learning reinforcement if we think of ways to increase the strength of each individual instance of assessment.
e.g. Collaborative Learning Activities
Incorporating collaborative learning activities, such as peer discussion, can improve knowledge retention and develop social skills. Conversely, omitting collaborative learning activities indeed removes opportunities for social skill development, while knowledge retention is kept to a baseline depending on how they engage with individual tasks or self-study.