I'm sympathetic to this too. If I were writing a program that critiqued a sample and suggested alternatives, I might give the output to the writer and ask "why

I'm sympathetic to this too. If I were writing a program that critiqued a sample and suggested alternatives, I might give the output to the writer and ask "why not this?" But not insist they adopt it verbatim. Unfortunately, in her examples, "simple" becomes a style I would call "lifeless." >Readability scores are easy to understand. Many people use these scores to help them write. Some groups that use readability scores are: This is what a second grade reading book would look like: boring and repetitive. On the other hand, what it replaces: > Moreover, the simplicity of readability checkers has enabled their widespread adoption. Military engineers use them to help write technical documents. Governments and doctors use them to guide communication for a general audience. Schools and textbook manufacturers use them to tailor reading assignments to particular grade levels and students. .. is not that great, either. (I happen to like the word "moreover" but maybe that's just me!) It has several flaws which she's corrected: 1. Vague, pretentious, academic-sounding words ("enabled their widespread adoption"). 2. Just plain unnecessary words ("to help write technical documents" could just be "for technical documents" -- what else would you use them for, if not writing?) "guide communication for a general audience" -- totally unnecessary and pretentious. Something a committee would write. "tailor reading assignments to particular grade levels and students" -- also verbose and unnecessary. 3. Passive voice ("has enabled") On the other hand, the bullet points are babyish and condescending. So how about this? "Moreover, readability checkers are simple, and they're being used more and more in writing. Military engineers, governments, doctors, and schools all use them." Do you need to say HOW each group is using them? No, you don't; it's obvious.