Premise 1: Civil trials often involve great complexities that are beyond the capacities of jurors to understand.
Premise 2: As a result, jurors' decisions in such trials are frequently incorrect.
Conclusion: Justice would therefore be better served if the more complex trials were decided by judges rather than juries.
Possible assumption: Judges are better than juries,at understanding complex trials and providing decisions in such trials.
A. A majority of civil trials involve complexities that jurors are not capable of understanding.
Incorrect. We are not concerned whether majority of complex civil trials involve jurors and their capability. It doesn't affect our conclusion in any way. B. The judges who would decide complex civil trials would be better able to understand the complexities of those trials than jurors are.
Bingo. This what we assumedC. The judges who would preside over civil trials would disallow the most complex sorts of evidence from being introduced into those trials.
Incorrect. Irrelevant whether judges disallow most complex sorts of evidence in trials.D. Jurors' decisions are frequently incorrect even in those civil trials that do not involve great complexities.
Incorrect. Frequent incorrect decisions,not involving great complexities, by jurors are not a matter of concern for us here.E. The sole reason in favor of having juries decide civil trials is the supposition that their decisions will almost always be correct.
Incorrect. We are not concerned whether decisions will be almost always correct. A bit stretched in assuming this and irrelevant too.