If you’ve ever had feedback like ‘Needs more development,’ ‘Explain this,’ or the classic ‘Expand your argument,’ you’ve probably run into under‑explanation. It’s one of the most common issues students face across all disciplines. And it matters, because even great ideas fall flat if your reader can’t follow your thinking.
Under‑explanation happens when you assume the reader knows something they don’t, skip steps in your logic, or fail to unpack why something is true or important. The result? Writing that feels vague, unconvincing, or incomplete. The good news: once you’re aware of it, it’s surprisingly fixable.
Below are four examples showing what under‑explanation looks like and how to improve it.
Example: incomplete causal explanations (biochemistry)
Under‑explained version:
Enzymes speed up reactions because they lower activation energy.
This is true… but it doesn’t explain how lowering activation energy speeds things up, or what activation energy even is for someone outside the field.
Improved version:
Enzymes speed up chemical reactions by lowering the activation energy—the minimum energy required for molecules to react. They do this by binding to specific molecules and holding them in positions that make the reaction more likely to occur. Because less energy is needed to get the reaction started, the process happens much faster.
What’s fixed: it defines the key concept and explains the causal process.
Example: not linking evidence to a claim (economics)
Under‑explained version:
Income inequality increases social tension.
Again, probably true, but without showing how or why, it’s just a slogan.
Improved version:
Income inequality can increase social tension because large gaps between groups make people more aware of status differences. Research shows that when individuals feel comparatively deprived—believing they are worse off than others—they are more likely to experience frustration, distrust, and resentment, which can contribute to protest or conflict.
What’s fixed: the explanation connects the observed pattern to a psychological mechanism (relative deprivation).
Example: obscure concept not explained (engineering)
Under‑explained version:
When engineers evaluate the long‑term stability of a new bridge design, they typically analyse how the steel cables respond to temperature changes, wind loads, and repeated traffic vibrations. Most of these effects are predictable, but the team also identified early signs of metastable shear divergence, which could influence how the structure behaves during extreme stress events.
Most engineers won’t know for sure what metastable shear divergence means.
Improved version:
When engineers evaluate the long‑term stability of a new bridge design, they typically analyse how the steel cables respond to temperature changes, wind loads, and repeated traffic vibrations. Most of these effects are predictable, but the team also identified early signs of metastable shear divergence—an unstable pattern of sideways forces that appears only under rare conditions and can briefly amplify a structure’s movement.
What’s fixed: a difficult concept is explained concisely.
Example: rarefied technical term not explained (human resource management)
Under‑explained version:
The organisation’s shift toward a more centralised decision‑making structure has exposed weaknesses in its ability to recognise and use new ideas. However, without addressing the emerging issue of latent coupling drift, the firm risks undermining the benefits of its new structure.
Improved version:
The organisation’s shift toward a more centralised decision‑making structure has exposed weaknesses in its ability to recognise and use new ideas. However, without addressing the emerging issue of latent coupling drift—a gradual and often unnoticed loosening of the connections between parts of the organisation that are supposed to work together—the firm risks undermining the benefits of its new structure.
What’s fixed: an explanation of latent coupling drift has been added.
Summary
When giving a causal explanation take a moment to think of every step in that causal chain and include them in your account. When dealing with more obscure concepts, try to remember that, while your reader is an expert, they might still not be aware of more niche technical terms.
Respond
