Good writing welcomes readers in. Its meaning is available on first reading because its sentences proceed in a logical order, its words carry their ordinary and intended sense, and its structure helps readers see where they’re going. Accessibility doesn’t mean oversimplification or a ban on technical terms. Legal analysis often requires precision and specialized vocabulary. But writers should use those tools to clarify thought—not to make readers toil to discover it.
Bad writing, by contrast, puts obstacles between readers and the writer’s meaning. It may bury the point in long, overpacked sentences; rely on abstractions when concrete terms would do; announce conclusions without showing the reasoning; or use jargon as a substitute for analysis. Readers must then decode the prose, reconstruct the syntax, and guess at relationships that the writer should have made explicit. That isn’t rigor. It’s a failure of communication.
A useful test is this: Can attentive but uninitiated readers identify your point, your reasons, and the significance of each paragraph without rereading? If they can’t, revise. Put the main point where readers expect to find it—early. Prefer familiar words when they’ll state the thought with equal accuracy. Make each sentence lead naturally to the next. The aim isn’t merely that readers can decipher your prose. It’s that they understand it readily.