10 Ways Your Sentences Can Hide Your Best Ideas
- Lauren Simek
- Nov 13
- 5 min read
A few weeks ago, I shared a resource to help writers uncover their argument at the paragraph level: 7 Steps to Your Breakthrough Draft.
Today, I want to zoom in further and talk about how arguments hide at the sentence level—how certain sentence structures can obscure the nuance and complexity of your best ideas, and what to do about it.
Why Sentences Matter More Than You Might Think
In analytical nonfiction, every sentence does one of two things:
It either moves the argument forward, or
It circles around an idea without advancing it.
When a paragraph feels muddy or flat, it’s often not the ideas that are weak—it’s that the sentences are holding back the logic that connects those ideas.
Let’s look at the ten most common ways that happens:
Lists That Flatten Complexity
When you’re struggling to articulate your ideas, lists can feel tidy, rhythmic, and reassuringly complete—especially the classic list of three. But they often turn a dynamic relationship into a static inventory.
Before: “This study examines the role of mentorship, institutional support, and personal motivation in faculty development.”
Each term is equal, so the reader can’t tell what drives what.
After: “While personal motivation sustains faculty growth, mentorship and institutional support determine whether that motivation translates into lasting change.”
The revised sentence now has direction—it moves from cause to effect, showing not just what you’re examining, but why it matters.
Sentences that Frontload a Source
When a paragraph begins with “According to [Name],” the source becomes the center of gravity rather than the idea.
Before: “According to Smith (2019), interdisciplinary collaboration improves student learning.”
After: “Interdisciplinary collaboration can improve student learning by transforming the construction of knowledge (Smith, 2019).”
Your thinking leads; the citation follows. The source becomes a collaborator rather than the headline act.
Even Better: Once you’ve explained how the source supports your point, use a follow-up sentence to build on it:
“Building on Smith’s findings, my research suggests that collaboration is most effective when it emerges from shared institutional goals rather than ad hoc partnerships.”
Articulating a new angle, context, or addition to the source’s point gives readers a more immediate sense of the full value of your contribution.
Passive Voice That Hides Cause and Effect
Passive constructions can serve a purpose, but their overuse blurs agency and causality.
Before: “Mistakes were made during the implementation phase.”
After: “Because leadership shifted midway through the project, our department overlooked key quality checks.”
Naming the actor clarifies the logic—and reveals a causal argument you may not have realized you were making.
Abstract Nouns That Blur the Action
Nominalizations—nouns made from verbs, like implementation or evaluation—make prose sound formal but often strip it of energy and precision.
Before: “The implementation of new assessment strategies led to improved student engagement.”
After: “When instructors replaced timed quizzes with open-ended reflections, students engaged more.”
Using strong verbs and indicating the sources of agency in a sentence keeps readers connected to the action and shows how one thing leads to another—key for tracing logic and cause.
“X is Y” Sentences That Equate Instead of Argue
Sentences built around to be (is/are) can make relationships sound fixed or self-evident instead of reasoned.
Before: “Community engagement is a key aspect of institutional success.”
After: “Institutions thrive when they seek out opportunities to partner with the community.”
Replacing static equivalence with movement—a shift, contrast, or transformation—turns an observation into an argument.
Hedging That Dilutes the Claim
Cautious language (might suggest that, could indicate) has its place, but too much of it drains conviction.
Before: “This study might suggest that social support could be related to improved outcomes.”
After: “This study suggests that social support improves outcomes.”
A single, well-chosen qualifier maintains intellectual honesty without sacrificing strength.
Topic Sentences That Announce Instead of Lead
Topic sentences that begin with “This section will discuss…” or “In the following, I examine…” tell readers what’s coming but not why it matters.
Before: “This section discusses the role of introversion in leadership.”
After: “Common understandings of leadership often assume extroversion as a prerequisite, but introversion contributes unique value.”
That small shift transforms a preview into an argument—it introduces tension, a claim, and a reason to keep reading.
Overstuffed Compounds and Coordination Chains
When multiple clauses are strung together with and, but, or while, ideas lose hierarchy and momentum.
Before: “The program was successful, and students responded positively, but the long-term impact remains uncertain, and more research is needed.”
After: “The program was immediately successful—students responded with enthusiasm. The next challenge is determining whether those effects last.”
Breaking compound chains into discrete thoughts clarifies relationships and gives readers time to process each step in your reasoning.
“There Is/There Are” Openings That Delay the Point
Sentences that start with there is or there are push your real subject to the back, weakening impact and slowing pace.
Before: “There are many ways narrative structure shapes moral perception.”
After: “Narrative structure shapes moral perception by encouraging readers to hold competing interpretations in mind as the story unfolds.”
This simple edit immediately increases clarity and momentum, allowing you to get right to the meat of the idea, rather than putting it off until the next sentence.
Quotations That Take Over the Paragraph
Long or standalone quotations can overwhelm your own voice and bury your analysis.
Before: “As bell hooks writes, ‘The classroom remains the most radical space of possibility in the academy.’”
After: “As bell hooks reminds us, classrooms are not neutral—they can reproduce hierarchies or challenge them. Her view of classrooms as “radical space[s] of possibility” reframes teaching as a form of activism.”
Including a long quotation without much framing or interpretation assumes readers will take from it exactly what you do. But everyone perceives things differently. Your unpacking of a source’s language should offer insight that readers wouldn’t have gleaned on their own.
Learning to See the Patterns Will Help You Find Your Argument
You may have heard advice from past writing teachers such as avoid to be verbs or use stronger, more vivid verbs. These aren’t just empty writing rules. Noticing to be verbs in your writing can help you catch passive voice (#3), there is/there are openings (#9), or static X is Y constructions (#5). Weak verbs often signal sentences that depend on nouns to carry the argument (#1, #2, #4, #7, or #10) or that use excessive hedging (#6).
Syntax can quietly hide your meaning, even from yourself. A sentence may be grammatically flawless yet still drain the energy from your ideas. When you revise, ask:
Who or what leads the sentence?
What relationship am I showing: cause? contrast? evolution?
Am I naming relationships or just listing facts?
Once you notice these tendencies, you’ll spot where your prose is holding your ideas back and where a quick revision could reveal the full extent of your argument—to you as you continue to revise and to your future readers.
Writers often assume they need more evidence or a better angle when they’re stuck. More often, the breakthrough is already in the draft; it’s just hidden in the phrasing.
If you’d like a framework for achieving the same kind of clarity at the paragraph level, download 7 Steps to Your Breakthrough Draft below. It helps you uncover the throughline of your chapter or article, fast-tracking your drafting and revision process.