Ajinkya, I’d like to humbly share my thoughts with you on what you say in the following bit of text:

“28. Get rid of in other words — If you have to write ‘in other words’, get rid of what you wrote earlier, and just put that there instead. It’s likely to be more concise, thus more effectively communicating your message.”

I disagree with your implicit suggestion here that ideas are necessarily communicated more effecitively whenever they’re expressed in concise terms.

I don’t see any valid reason why we have to accept that shorter sentences are straightforwardly easier to understand or more inherently useful than longer ones.

Let me give you an example, which actually makes use of the phrase “in other words”.

[1.] Writing is the exteriorization of thinking.

[2.] In other words, writing is the tangible manifestation, the concrete product or outcome, of the effort to express our thoughts to others in a way that allows others to publicly “interact” with our ideas, i.e., to criticize, dispute, build on, or qualify them in an open and transparent setting.

Which of these two sentences better explains the claim that words are (one form of) thoughts made manifest?

The first sentence is shorter but potentially more difficult to understand, particularly if you’re unfamiliar with the dynamics of the concept of exteriorization.

The second sentence is longer and might take more effort to “think through” but it provides far more detail, thus making it easier for the reader to grasp the essential point being expressed.

Even if we were to reword the first sentence by writing, “Writing is the product of thinking”, I would still maintain that the second sentence is more valuable.

Although the first would become simpler in this rewritten form, the second still contains many more details, which serve to “flesh out” the idea by giving it more depth.

If the second sentence is better than the first, i.e., if it explains more, then why not just remove the first and include only the second, as per your suggestion?

Because of at least three reasons:

1. There is inherent value in learning about, and “struggling with”, difficult concepts such as exteriorization, particularly because complex concepts expand the ways in which we can think about, make sense of, and thus write about the world and the processes operating within it. We shouldn’t commit ourselves to a rule that requires avoiding difficult concepts merely because we might be able to convey (some of) what they express in less demanding language.
2. Expressing the same basic idea in multiple, slightly different ways demands that you, as the writer, further enhance your own understanding of the topic about which you’re writing. Indeed, it forces you to think hard(er) about what, exactly, you’re trying to convey. From the perspective of developing a deeper understanding of a given issue, this can only be a good thing.
3. Detailing the same core idea in numerous, unique ways also provides the reader with more opportunities to make sense of what she is reading. We often need to engage with the same idea, theme, or problem multiple times in order to truly grasp its meaning and significance. This is precisely why authors tend to “hammer home”, i.e., explain in multiple ways using multiple examples, the major arguments of their essays and books: their goal is to ensure that readers doesn’t misinterpret (or flat-out overlook) their most important insights, and repeating these insights in slightly different ways each time is key to achieving this.

“In other words”, when used sparingly and appropriately, serves as a way to give greater context to, and to expand the description or explanation of, an idea, claim, or argument that precedes it.

Yes, what follows “in other words” is sometimes more comprehensible than what precedes it but that which precedes it also becomes instantly more comprehensible as a result.

So, what you’re left with is two sentences that are now both more intelligible to the reader because they “play off” of, i.e., inform, each other.

Because they express the same idea but in slightly different ways, the reader is presented with a better overall “picture” of what you, as the writer, are trying to convey.

And, as I’ve just argued, cultivating a more meaningful understanding of an idea presented in a piece of writing is beneficial to both readers and writers.

In other words, then, there’s a lot more that needs to be said when it comes to “get rid of in other words”.

Cheers!