That does not change anything to my point: saying "just stop reading a novel whenever you want" is not incompatible with "essays should get to the point".
Even if you are right, you still acknowledge that you need a "core" explanation for the essay and that stopping before finishing it is not enough to grasp the idea properly. The only things the author of the article says is that it's better if the core explanation is not stretched in length for no real reason. So, it demonstrates that it is not the same as for a novel. The so-called "paradox" or "hypocrisy" does not exist.
It's like pretending that someone is hypocritical if they both say "I like movies where the main character does a lot of fighting" and "I really don't like the fact that my physics professor does a lot of fighting during their lecture".
Even if you are right, you still acknowledge that you need a "core" explanation for the essay and that stopping before finishing it is not enough to grasp the idea properly. The only things the author of the article says is that it's better if the core explanation is not stretched in length for no real reason. So, it demonstrates that it is not the same as for a novel. The so-called "paradox" or "hypocrisy" does not exist.
It's like pretending that someone is hypocritical if they both say "I like movies where the main character does a lot of fighting" and "I really don't like the fact that my physics professor does a lot of fighting during their lecture".