I know their reasoning for their conclusion and yet the conclusion seems (to me) to be insufficiently reasoned for, given their reasons/premises).
An interesting phenomenon in which persons presume that if a person disagrees with them, the person who disagrees with them has misunderstood their point. This is not always true:
Person B might completely understand Person A's reasoning (the reasons by which they reached their conclusion) but nonetheless disagree with Person A's claim that their reasoning for their conclusion is sufficient for the conclusion.
Note that Person A is presuming that their reasoning is sufficient for their conclusion. From this presumption they believe that if they are disagreed with, some alternative manner of thinking about the issue (more generally, some explanation may be offered for why their disagreers believe that the reasoning is not sufficient for the conclusion) may be at play that is suggesting to their disagreers that their reasoning is not sufficient for the conclusion, when they believe (possibly erroneously) that it is sufficient for the conclusion. That manner of thinking or explanation for why they are disagreed with is the matter of being misunderstood, or that their disagreers misunderstand the reasoning (or possibly the conclusion itself).
I suspect that some things that lend to this occurring are info/theory bombs, vague speech, PresumptionOfSelfRighteousness, etc.