Passage Summary: A lawyer argues that since jurors can't understand the fancy legal talk used in court instructions, we should switch to plain English. He believes it's better for a jury to understand the basics than to be confused by 'perfect' legal jargon.

Conclusion: Jury instructions ought to be written in simple, clear language rather than complex legal terms.

Reasoning: Jurors struggle to understand the current precise language, and it is more vital for them to grasp their general role than to have every technical detail perfectly defined.

Analysis: This is a 'Strengthen EXCEPT' question, so four answers will support the idea that simple language is better, and one will not. We want to support the idea that simplicity leads to better outcomes or that the current complexity is actively harmful. The correct answer might be irrelevant to the jury's understanding or might actually suggest that the precision being lost is more important than the lawyer claims. Look for an option that doesn't help bridge the gap between 'jurors are confused' and 'we should simplify the language.'