Option A: Wrong
Thus statement does not accurately capture the writer's mind which to a large extent does not in any way infer or seek to infer that dissenting opinions are predicated on the number of judges involved. it is not accurate and it is presumptive.

Option B: Wrong
It is not accurate and appropriate wholly to conclude that judicial jargons is the only language or mode of communication employed for judicial processes. It is necessary to assert that legal opinions must have found its basis in the prescription of the law which then means technical terminology would and should come into use.

Option C: Wrong
Law jurisprudence, administration and decisions are based on available facts and evidence before the judges and not necessarily by dissenting opinions. It could be offered but wherein the judges rely on dissenting views to administer justice then, intimidation must have surely set in, which means justice could be perverted.

Option D: Wrong
It may not be sufficient to be assertive from the writer's perspective in that, ''judges'' need to use their skills to balance between using literary works and legal jargons in the discharge of judicial duties. It has been said by the writer that judges sometimes include them in their decisions.

Option E: Wrong
This is due to dissenting opinions by the judges so concerned. It is imperative to know that in most cases, more than one judge means they are subject to have different decisions but they must find a common ground which should traverse personal interest could well account for dissenting voices and not necessarily based on judicial beliefs.