Question: In [this answer](https://ell.stackexchange.com/a/185/54), Liam W said [emphasis added]

> 
> 'A Japanese' **infers** the Japanese person is a thing, and not a person.
>  This is what **deems** it offensive.
> 
> 
> 'A Japanese Person' **infers** the Japanese person is just that - a
>  person, and is therefore considered fine for use.
> 
> 
> 

While not wanting to go [this far](http://xkcd.com/1133/) in using simple words, should we try to use simple and common words that are easily understood by people learning English?

An exception to this would be technical terms to do with English, such as "split infinitive". They should still be used, because it is easier to google for "split infinitive" than "boldly putting a word between "to" and the verb".

Answer: 
Do not avoid them in contexts where the meaning can be inferred from that context. That is the best way for users to learn them!

OTOH, definitely avoid them if not knowing their meaning will make given answer confusing - when the meaning is not apparent. Alternatively, reiterate, rephrase the same thing using simpler terms to make it clear.

In the example case both bolded words are used in context that makes their meaning fairly apparent, so there is no harm in leaving them in.
Yes, where possible, I think it is best to answer with the simplest words available. Use simpler sentence structures, and a smaller range of words. But I would suggest that technical terms to do with grammar should be used freely, since that is what people are often here to learn about.

The particular example given is just bad though: **infers** and **deems** are used incorrectly.