Which is the correct expression – "hard to understate" or "hard to overstate" when trying to use for emphasis? Searching on Google, both expressions appear popular but overstate has about 10x the results.
For example, the Washington Post writes the sentence "It would be hard to understate the positive effect the manufacturer has made in the area." where the effect was legitimately very positive. This seems counter intuitive.
Is either variant correct in the same way "could/couldn't care less" are both common expressions?
Best Answer
We correctly use "hard to overstate" about things which are at, or near, the maximum or high end of some scale. It is hard to overstate the danger of touching high-voltage wires. It is hard to overstate the destructive power of an atomic bomb.
We use "hard to understate" about things which are at, or near, the minimum or lower end of some scale. It is hard to understate the amount of fun there is to be had at a funeral. It was hard to understate what you could see from the cheap seats at a Neil Diamond concert.
It has frequently been remarked by students of language how often people get these around the wrong way, or use 'understate' when they mean 'overstate', for example here and here. Similar topic ("cannot/must not underestimate") here A Google search for "hard to understate" (with quote marks) mostly returns examples of misuse.