I am not about to defend everyone as a decent communicator, but I do want to highlight a difficult scenario -- when discussing complex subjects, experts often s

I am not about to defend everyone as a decent communicator, but I do want to highlight a difficult scenario -- when discussing complex subjects, experts often strive to provide a complete answer/retort to a question/statement which almost always contains many caveats and a may necessitate pulling in background from tangential areas that comes across as meandering if not viewed through the same lens. Concise is not often accurate, but it's what non-experts want to hear. It's a catch-22, as the seemingly muddy conversation loses them distinction but if they do not pursue that route, then they mislead their audience and bad decisions can be made as a result. Weaving together an on-the-fly response that both ties off the thought process and presents a narrative that doesn't lose the audience is a skill not many possess without extensive practice (e.g. high-level debate training, trial law, etc..).