"It is well established that a reviewing court will not address arguments that are not adequately briefed." State v. Thomas, 961 P.2d 299, 304 (Utah 1998); see also State v. Thomas, 1999 UT 2, P11, 974 P.2d 269; Walker v. U.S. Gen., Inc., 916 P.2d 903, 908 (Utah 1996). Rule 24 of the Utah Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that the "brief of the appellant shall contain . . . an argument that shall contain the contentions and reasons of the appellant with respect to the issues presented, . . . with citations to the authorities, statutes, and parts of the record relied on." Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9). An appellate court "'is not simply a depository in which the appealing party may dump the burden of argument and research.'" Thomas, 1999 UT 2 at P11 (quoting State v. Bishop, 753 P.2d 439, 450 (Utah 1988)). When reviewing jury instructions, we must consider the challenged instruction in context. See Cheves v. Williams, 1999 UT 86, P37, 993 P.2d 191; Jensen v. Intermountain Power Agency, 1999 UT 10, P16, 977 P.2d 474. Generally, the rewording of a statute as a jury instruction is not error as long as it does not change the essential meaning of the statute. See 75A Am. Jur. 2d Trial 1132, at 648; accord Holmes v. Heidebrecht, 10 Utah 2d 74, 75-76, 348 P.2d 565, 566 (1960). Therefore, we must determine the meaning of the omitted sentence to ascertain whether its omission from the jury instruction changed the meaning from that of the statute. When interpreting a statute, we must first look to the statute's plain language for the legislative intent. See Coleman v. Thomas, 2000 UT 53, P9, 4 P.3d 783. We look no further if the plain language of the statute is unambiguous on its face. See id.