At the same time it's not unreasonable to require roughly the same amount of time from the reader, as in the same amount of effort is needed to grasp the concep

At the same time it's not unreasonable to require roughly the same amount of time from the reader, as in the same amount of effort is needed to grasp the concepts written. Language is very malleable, and to counteract this it's imperative to use structured writing, detail the model of the concept being communicated, then give ample examples and counter-examples to clarify the model and thus the concept itself. It's crazy to expect that a well-written sentence will be read just as well without the same context that the drafter(s) had. Yet we are very allergic to giving examples, because that would introduce [more pages to complain about politicians voting on them not reading] aaaaaand more somehow ambiguity. (Oh right, we're talking about this because otherwise statutes and their clarity and interpretations are so unambiguous!)