Lawyer: Juries are traditionally given their instructions in convoluted, legalistic language.
Conclusion
Jury instructions should be written in simple, easily comprehensible language.
Evidence (since)
It is more important for jurors to have a basic but adequate understanding of their role than for the details to be precisely specified.
Greater precision is of little use if most jurors have trouble understanding the instructions.
Evaluate
If we hear anything being assumed, we can potentially look for those sorts of ideas as strengtheners. Or we can raise potential objections and look for answers that rule out those objections to be strengtheners.
The argument has an Untriggered Conditional: .
The author is assuming jurors do have difficulty understanding, and so the current version of instructions is not that useful, and thus we should switch to simpler instructions.
The author identifies the goal of her plan as , so she is assuming that using simple / easy language could accomplish that goal.
If we were objecting to the plan, we'd try to think of some downside of using simple / easy language -- maybe something important would be lost. So we could strengthen the argument by saying, .
Goal
Let's get rid of the four answers that help us argue that it would be advantageous to switch to simpler wording: the current complex wording is bad / the suggested simpler wording would be effective and better.