I had this history teacher in high school giving the class an assignment to write an essay on the events leading up to the Second World War. The first question that came up was how long does this essay need to be – to which the teacher replied that if you can cover this complex topic on one single A4 that would give you full score on the assignment – but that he sincerely doubted that anyone could cover such a complex topic in such a short amount of text. Everyone was mind blown by this argumentation. Nobody had ever heard a teacher say anything like that and that kind of shows how we already as kids are thought that more is always better.
It's a good anecdote but needs a bit more boundary condition. One can always pick a level of abstraction to make an explanation long or short; humans usually pick this level based on context and social convention. For example, if the question was "describe how a keypress results in a screen glyph" can be described in one sentence, or in a long series of books (assuming you get into the firmware, software stack, electronics and materials science, manufacturing processes, etc). For WW2 you could say it started when Hitler invaded Poland, and then France. Or you could get into the Versailles treaty. Or you could talk about the evolution of life on Earth. You might say the latter is pedantic, and it is, but it's also technically an event that led to WW2.
