Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How to know you are over-explaining and oversimplifying a subject?

+0
−0

Recently, I started writing articles about different subjects I learn on my own (programming, logic ...etc).

While writing, I have this tendency to overexplain, I know that readers are smart, but I still think that there is room for misunderstanding, so I tend to repeat myself and oversimplify things unconsciously.

Is is just a feeling? how do I know if I am over-simplifying and over-explaining the material?

Edit

This is an example :

The first argument is a Deductive Argument, in that it has Premise 1, Premise 2, and a conclusion .. And we may also consider it an Inductive Argument, in that we can verify Premise 1 and 2 inductivly, by means of observation, to determine whether Socrates has a beard, or whether all Greeks have beards, and to conclude whether the conclusion is probably true or false.

So, to some extent, we can consider some Deductive Arguments to be also Inductive Arguments. You can think of our argument this way inductively :

Premise 1: Socrates is a Greek (Inductively Probably True, because most records and accounts about Socrates refer to him as a Greek, and his name is a Greek name).

Premise 2: All Greeks have beards. (Inductively False, because many Greeks today apparently do not have beards, and many statues of ancient Greeks have no beards, therefore the statement is false).

Conclusion: Socrates has a beard. (The statement is probably Inductively True, since we have statues, paintings and references depicting Socrates as a man with a beard, therefore we know that this is probably True). Notice that our argument, although deductively valid, has one inductively false premise (Premise 2), and this does not make the conclusion necessarily inductively false.

Which means that the relationship between induction and deduction is very tricky.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/42481. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.

0 comment threads

1 answer

+0
−0

A textbook I used to use for technical writing had this on the cover

Nobody wants to read what you write.

That sounds discouraging, but often people are looking at technical information to answer a specific question or solve a problem. Even if I'm getting lost in a Wikipedia Hole, it's because I had a question. (It then became three more questions...)

Always consider audience and purpose. Who is reading and why?

My drafts are long, too, but when I edit, I try to focus on the reader's next question.

A great resource is www.plainlanguage.gov .

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »