This says financial aid should be necessary for any use of stop-action and highlighting. Two problems. First, the author doesn’t go so far as to suggest that any of his recommendations are downright necessary to keep using CG displays. His recommendations are just offered to help avoid misuse. Second, financial aid isn’t proposed to tackle the misuse of any particular techniques—it’s to tackle the inaccessibility of CG displays in general. To prevent the misuse of specific techniques, the author recommends other measures: data analysis, scrutiny by judges, and education of jurors.

Strongly supported. The author says that CG displays should be scrutinized when allowing them as evidence and that speculation is one factor to consider when deciding whether a given display is admissible as evidence.

Unsupported comparison. The author doesn’t discuss the relative effectiveness of different kinds of displays. He just acknowledges that CG displays as a whole have their uses.

Unsupported comparison. The author doesn’t consider how important CG displays are relative to other kinds of evidence. In fact, he doesn’t discuss other kinds of evidence at all. He just acknowledges that CG displays have their uses and drawbacks.

Anti-supported. The author doesn’t suggest that the realism or persuasiveness of CG displays depends at all on how good the underlying data are. In fact, he’s concerned that CG displays can be inherently misleading, and he recommends that the underlying data be analyzed for problems. This suggests he’s worried that even CG displays built on bad data can be persuasive to jurors and end up misleading them.