When I was doing maths at university, I very often found that I couldn't quite prove something I had to. Being very sneaky, I would then do a bit of proof, write a little bit of incomprehensible gibberish, and then write the last couple of lines assuredly saying that the problem was solved.
I get a little bit worried that proper philosophers might do a similar thing. In particular, the approach on this site very often seems to be to check that an argument about, say, morality matches our preconceived ideas.
So I guess my question is how much can I believe what a philosopher says when I don't understand part of their argument?
PS - my sneaky exam technique didn't work very well :(