Having provided some suggestions on how to disambiguate between the different close reasons, I will now argue against a misuse of the 'too broad' close reason I encounter at times.

In short, a distinction should be made between broad topics and questions which beg for broad answers. The former could potentially be answered as a one-liner, whereas the latter will always require lengthy answers—the very reason why 'too broad' as a close reason was introduced.

For example, the question "Can animals develop mental disorders that are unique or similar to our own?" covers a broad topic (all animals, all mental disorders), but one example would suffice as an answer.

On the other hand, if the question would have been phrased as "Which mental disorders can animals develop?" it would be too broad and should be closed as such. However, in case this question would not include any motivation to ask about mental disorders in animals, it should be closed as 'not framed in the cognitive sciences' in the first place.

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .