学問 and 学識: scholarly pursuit and a person's learning
Compare scholarship as a field or attitude with a teacher's learning and the need for clear explanation. Distinguish scholarly knowledge from the separate ability to explain it.
A scholarly field and personal learning
学問 (がくもん) can mean scholarship or study, while 学識 (がくしき) concerns scholarly learning. Pursuing history as a field and encountering a teacher's learning put the focus on different roles.
Scholarly pursuit and accumulated learning can be related. Still, a reaction to a teacher's learning and the general need for clear explanations are separate reported examples; they do not identify a single person's strengths or weaknesses.
Pursuing history and questioning evidence
「彼は生涯を通じて、歴史という学問を究めようとした。」 — “He devoted his life to studying history in depth.” The Japanese sentence reports an attempt to pursue history in depth across a lifetime. 学問 names the field here, rather than a university building or a job, and does not establish successful mastery.
「学問には、疑問を持ち続けて根拠を確かめる姿勢が大切だ。」 — “In scholarship, it is important to keep asking questions and checking the evidence.” Continued questions and checking evidence are presented as an important attitude. This is not an evaluation of how much learning a particular person possesses.
Learning that inspires and explanations that help
「先生の深い学識に触れ、研究への関心が高まった。」 — “Encountering the teacher's deep scholarship increased my interest in research.” What increased was interest in research after encountering the teacher's learning. The example does not report a research achievement or completed acquisition of that learning.
「豊かな学識だけでなく、分かりやすい説明も必要だ。」 — “Clear explanations are necessary in addition to broad learning.” だけでなく and も require clear explanation alongside learning. Learning alone does not guarantee easy explanation, and the sentence does not evaluate the teacher from the other example.
How are learning and explanation connected in 豊かな学識だけでなく、分かりやすい説明も必要だ?
Show the answer and why
Both rich learning and clear explanation are necessary. The sentence does not treat them as the same ability or suggest that learning removes the need for clear explanation.