Passage Summary: Since ancient Greek lawyers had to charm a jury of average people without any help from judges, their speeches are a great window into what those average people valued.

Conclusion: The speeches given by litigants in ancient Greek courts are excellent resources for understanding the moral beliefs of the general public.

Reasoning: Because juries were regular citizens and there was no legal guidance or cross-examination, litigants had to focus entirely on making a positive impression on those citizens.

Analysis: The argument makes a jump from 'wanting to make a good impression' to 'reflecting common morality.' It assumes that the best way—or perhaps the only way—to impress a Greek jury was to appeal to their moral sensibilities. To strengthen this, we need to solidify that link. I should look for an answer that suggests litigants specifically tailored their arguments to match the audience's moral compass or that the jury's favor was won through moral alignment.