Fine-tuning LLMs for classification typically maps inputs directly to labels. We ask whether attaching brief explanations to each label during fine-tuning yields better models. We evaluate conversational response quality along three axes: naturalness, comprehensiveness, and on-topic adherence, each rated on 5-point scales. Using ensemble-generated data from multiple LLMs, we fine-tune a 7B-parameter model and test across six diverse conversational datasets. Across 18 dataset, task settings, label-plus-explanation training outperforms label-only baselines. A central and unexpected result concerns random tokens. We replace human-written explanations with text that is syntactically incoherent yet vocabulary-aligned with the originals (e.g., shuffled or bag-of-words variants). Despite lacking semantics, these pseudo-explanations still improve accuracy over label-only training and often narrow much of the gap to true explanations. The effect persists across datasets and training seeds, indicating that gains arise less from meaning than from structure: the extra token budget encourages richer intermediate computation and acts as a regularizer that reduces over-confident shortcuts. Internal analyses support this view: explanation-augmented models exhibit higher activation entropy in intermediate layers alongside sharper predictive mass at the output layer, consistent with increased deliberation before decision. Overall, explanation-augmented fine-tuning, whether with genuine rationales or carefully constructed random token sequences, improves accuracy and reliability for LLM classification while clarifying how token-level scaffolding shapes computation during inference.