Ditto Joe. Let me add:
To "enlighten" is to give information or wisdom. To "inspire" is to motivate.
"Enlighten" is rarely used today. But an example of a correct usage is, "I didn't know about the new rules until my boss enlightened me."
Perhaps somewhat more common is the adjective "enlightened", meaning "wise" or "compassionate". Like, "Tsar Alexander considered himself an enlightened monarch."
An example sentence with "inspire" is, "I was inspired to buy a new car by the desire to impress my girlfriend."
They're not really the same thing at all. I could get new information and do absolutely nothing about it, I might just say, "yeah, whatever". I could be inspired without getting any new information. Perhaps someone just encouraged me.
Where they might somewhat overlap is that "inspire" can be used to mean that one idea led to another. Like, "Mr Smith's latest novel was inspired by a story he read in the news." He got some idea or information, and that idea led to another idea.
But I can't think of any sentence where you could substitute "inspire" for "enlighten" or vice versa without significantly changing the meaning.
To add another answer, not because the others are wrong, but because I think they miss the main nuance for my differentiation of these terms:
Most often, a result is the consequence of one or more causes. It insists on the causality. This is also the heart of the particulate verb "result in", i.e. "to cause", "to bring about" or "to directly lead to".
On the other hand, an outcome is the final state of a given situation or setup. There doesn't need to be a direct cause, but various factors and events. In fact, there's a faint hint of denying knowledge of the exact reason it came about. An outcome is "how things turned out" or "what ended up happening".
Hence, if we take your example sentence on its own, "result" is preferable. The man jumps, and the direct consequence is that he dies. "Outcome" would produce the unusual suggestion that there are other factors in the man's death than jumping from the the 10th floor, or that the between jumping and dying there's a complicated process in which various things might happen.
But context is everything. If a person jumps from a high enough point, survives the fall with serious injuries, and is taken to the hospital where he receives various kinds of medical attention, then it would be very appropriate to say that the "outcome" was death. So it depends on what other facts you know about the case and where you want to put the emphasis.
Best Answer
In front of is a common phrase which functions as a compound preposition: in modern English it has almost completely replaced before in a spatial sense. If you try to analyse it, you need to interpret "the front of" as referring to a space outside the thing, which is a relatively uncommon meaning for it.
In the front of is not an established phrase in English, and so would normally be interpreted literally: "inside the front part of something". It is not common, because "the front of" something is usually a surface, and we don't often talk about things being in surfaces. An example where it might occur is I've got some water in the front of my watch, where we could understand "the front of my watch" meaning the space between the glass and the watch face.