Vagueness, Ambiguity and Clarity
In the first example the organization is not named, the type of van is not named, and the conflict going on is not named, to say the least, the entire section is very vague and does not refer or mention any one thing that is going on. The second example does not mention who, how or what was thrown out of the truck, why the truck went off the road.
The first example states "this particular case study will reflect an organization with a van that has undergoing internal conflict. It will also analyze the reason for the conflict and offer positive resolutions of this conflict. The project must first understand that conflict among the membership, its leaders, group or anyone attached did not just show up one day. Conflict has been in existence for a very long time. The religious leaders have a great responsibility to the congregation (and others who look for guidance and direction according to the scriptures). It does not matter what title he or she holds, if they are in a leadership role, they bare responsible and accountable."
Being vague in the first example influences understanding because not one person that is reading it would know anything about what is going on with the organization. There is no who, what, where or how stated in any part of the example. How would anyone understand what the organization is, what van is being talked about, what the conflict is, and why religious leaders are involved. The second example says, "I was thrown from my truck as it left the road. I was found later in a ditch by a flock of wild turkeys". What it does not say is who or what is "I", how it left the road, and how did "wild turkeys" help with the finding of "I".
The relationship between critical thinking and clear writing is very important, if a person does not think critically they cannot...