Jargon: "We need to leverage synergies across the tech stack." What is the clearest plain-English version?
"We should make our different tools work better together" says concretely what "leverage synergies across the tech stack" gestures at vaguely. Plain English replaces the buzzwords ("leverage", "synergies") with a clear statement of the actual goal.
The other options pile on more jargon ("operationalise", "paradigms", "ideate"), which obscures rather than clarifies. The test of good technical communication is whether a smart non-specialist understands you — buzzword stacking fails that test while sounding superficially impressive.
2 / 5
Jargon: "Utilise the API to facilitate data retrieval." What is the plain-English version?
"Use the API to get the data" is the plain, direct version. "Utilise" is just a longer word for "use," and "facilitate data retrieval" is a wordy way of saying "get the data." Plain English prefers the short, common word every time it carries the same meaning.
The distractors swap in "leverage", "employ", "action", "operationalise" — all inflated synonyms that add length and pomp without adding meaning. George Orwell's rule applies: never use a long word where a short one will do.
3 / 5
Jargon: "This represents a paradigm shift in our approach." When is plain English better, and what might you say instead?
Plain English is better when the jargon hides the actual content. "We're moving from monthly to continuous releases" tells the reader what the change actually is — far more useful than the vague grandeur of "paradigm shift."
"Paradigm shift" has become a tired buzzword that signals importance without conveying substance. Replacing it with the concrete before/after gives readers something real to understand and respond to. Naming the specific change always beats labelling it with an abstract cliché.
4 / 5
Jargon: "Let's circle back and touch base offline to action the next steps." What is the plain version?
"Let's talk later to agree on what to do next" strips out the stacked business-speak ("circle back", "touch base", "offline", "action") and says it plainly. Each piece of jargon mapped to something simple: circle back/touch base = talk again, offline = separately/later, action = do.
The other options just substitute different buzzwords ("operationalise", "synergise", "actionables", "higher-bandwidth channel"). Clear communication means a new team member or a non-technical stakeholder understands you immediately, without decoding corporate jargon.
5 / 5
Jargon: "The solution is highly performant and infinitely scalable." Why is plain, specific English better here?
Concrete numbers ("handles 10,000 requests per second and scales horizontally by adding nodes") are far more credible and useful than vague superlatives like "highly performant" and "infinitely scalable" — nothing is truly infinite, and "performant" without a number means little.
Specific, measurable claims let readers evaluate and trust your statement; piling on adjectives ("ultra-performant, web-scale") does the opposite, reading as marketing fluff. In technical writing, precision and evidence beat grand but empty descriptors every time.