And your first paragraph shares a lot of additional information: the writer has nothing in particular to say, and is just pretentiously filling the air as a sta

And your first paragraph shares a lot of additional information: the writer has nothing in particular to say, and is just pretentiously filling the air as a stalling tactic. You could condense that down to something like ... > [... incompetent bloviating elided ...] ... without losing any “meaning” (denotation), because there was none to begin with. Knowing what a windbag sounds like and knowing how to replicate that impression is a fine writing skill. A fiction author might want to portray a windbag character. A public relations or marketing team might want to whitewash a corrupt company or puff up a useless product. A debater without an argument might want to dump an avalanche of nonsense to distract the audience. If students write shitty papers which they pad out with pages of fluff not making an argument, the problem is (often) that the students didn’t want to put in the work, not that they didn’t understand the difference. The teacher should feel free to mercilessly put Xs through whole paragraphs, with marginal comments like “this says nothing”.