I have attached a lecture note which is meant to provide understanding on the following learning outcomes. appreciate the distinction between the macroscopic and microscopic views of matter understand the main qualitative differences between solids liquids and gases at the microscopic level be aware that atoms are in thermal motion know what a mole is, and be able to use Avogadro’s number to relate the number of particles to the number of moles understand how the form of the inter-atomic potential energy provides qualitative insights into phase changes and thermal expansion know the meaning of the term latent heat My lecturer does write as much information as I need to know to understand/ remember the key points written above. But he also includes a lot of unnecesaary detail about Brownian motion, measurement of the Avogadro's number and the derivation of the value of the Boltzmann's constant. My question is: Why should he include these details when all those items only help to confuse the students and raises additional, unnecesary questions in their minds? When I first read the lecture note w/o having read the syllabus, I was trying to remember facts about Brownian motion and the the derivation of the value of the Boltzmann's constant, both of which are difficult to remember because those are mostly facts. There is nothing to understand about those things. If I had not looked at the syllabus, I would have tried to commit those things to memory. My question is : If a lecturer does not provide a syllabus, how do you know which bits are worth remembering , and which not? Also, would you bother trying to understand all those unnecesary facts if you don't get them the first time you read the lecture notes?