I remember struggling to write essays when I was in highschool. Well, I was fine, but my teachers insisted it was long-winded gibberish. Concerned, my grand’mother told me: “Ask Sonia” I knew she was her friend, and they liked to argue a lot, but I was a bit confused by the advice. It turns out, editing was Sonia’s job: she was the head reader at a very prestigious publishing house, meaning she was giving notes and f…
> find the widest piece of context that explain the rest. Sounds interesting. Can you explain this?
> I asked the person who was standing there.
It has even more oratory precautions:
> We can argue that this result, that was seemingly proven wrong by a previous analysis, appear to be a consequence of a previous attempt that was investigated by my esteemed colleagues, who have looked into the author and found out that they …
If you want to split between each verb as they are, you end up with sentences that are in the wrong order:
> I asked a person. That person was standing there.
> We can argue that this result appear to be a consequence of a previous attempt. This result was seemingly proven wrong by a previous analysis. The attempt was investigated by my esteemed colleagues. My colleagues have looked into the author. They found out that the author…
So you are better off by thinking: what comes first? The person was standing there _before_ I asked, and I asked them because they were standing, so that information should come first:
> A person was standing there. I asked them.
Further, most actions in a chain of preposition explain a decision: those should come first.
> This result was surprising. Sceptics wanted to verify it. Their investigation concluded that the result was wrong. My colleagues wanted to know more. They investigated the authors of the result. They found out…
The outcome is a bit drier. The benefit is that if one sentence is longer, or an adjective inverted, or a complement put at the begining of the sentence, it’s more striking. That helps attracting attention to what matters, selectively.
For academic writing, you don’t need as many oratory precautions because you can report other findings without having to validate them as yours: you present them all as facts on equal footing. If you agree, it’s implied from the lack of criticism. If you disagree, it’s on you to prove why _after_ presenting the work fairly. For that, you have to include the key aspect to support you criticism in your first presentation.
I can also give the impression that you are just moving forward without a clear goal: “This happened, in particular then this happened, then this reacted…” which is why you want to summarise your point early: people will see the arguement getting closer to its goal, knowing what that goal is.