International Law in U.S. Courts
Professor Mike Ramsey
Spring 2013
Writing Strategies, Part II: Presenting the Argument
______________________________________________________
As Part II of the suggestions on writing strategy, this part focuses on more
detailed aspects of structure, organization and presentation.1 Its central message is that
the internal structure and coherence of individual subsections and paragraphs is as
essential to the success of the paper as is the more general organization of the paper
discussed in Part I.
1. Organization.
(a)
Clear, logical and coherent organization is the most important aspect of
good legal writing. The prior part of this reading emphasized the
importance of good organization at the most general level. Organization is
equally important at a more detailed level: subsections should be ordered in
a logical progression; within subsections, the arguments should be
developed one step at a time, with each paragraph logically following from
prior paragraphs; and within paragraphs arguments and evidence should be
arranged in a logical order. Do not skip from one argument to the next (or
back) or conflate distinct arguments or analyses. Be precise in
distinguishing among different types of arguments and different types of
evidence.
(b)
Use headings and subheadings to convey the paper’s general structure, as
discussed previously. Within subsections, keep in mind an implicit minioutline that mimics at a detailed level the high-level organization of the
paper (introduction, background, analysis, conclusion). It is often useful to
introduce each subsection with a roadmap of the subsection, or at least a
brief statement of what the subsection will accomplish.
2. Paragraph structure and flow.
(a)
Organization and coherence within paragraphs is critical. Professor Volokh
writes:
Each paragraph should be about one main thought. The first
sentence should usually express that thought: that’s why it’s often
1
This discussion relies in part on Eugene Volokh, Academic Legal Writing (2010). Consulting the
relevant portions of Professor Volokh’s book is recommended.
1
called the topic sentence. The other sentences should fit within
that thought. If they don’t, they belong in a different paragraph.
(b)
Paragraphs should not be too long or too short. One- or two-sentence
paragraphs do not give enough space to develop a thought, while more than
five or six sentences (or less, if your sentences are long) exhaust the reader
and probably express multiple thoughts that could be presented separately.
However, paragraph breaks should not be random; they should reflect the
end of one thought and the beginning of another, consistent with point 2(a).
A paper can mix short and long paragraphs, and indeed this structure can be
used to heighten reader engagement.
(c)
The paper should use transitions between paragraphs to provide a smooth
flow of ideas to the reader. Again Professor Volokh puts it well: “Each
paragraph should be logically linked to the one before it. When the reader
starts reading a paragraph, [the reader] should understand its relationship to
the preceding one.” If the logical structure of the subsection is simple and
evident, that may in itself provide enough transition for the reader. Often, it
will be a good idea to use transition words or phrases, either in the last
sentence of one paragraph or the first sentence of the next paragraph. In any
event, the key is that the reader should see why one paragraph follows
another.
3. Focus.
(a)
Get to the point; be specific. Avoid long-winded generalities when
introducing an argument, and avoid tangential details of law and fact in
presenting it. The paper should have a demanding test for relevance. If
something does not fit easily into a well-structured series of paragraphs, it
probably is unnecessary to the paper’s central message and should not be
included. At the same time, though, relevant details are crucial. Attention
to detail is a key to good lawyering and good legal writing. The validity of
arguments and analyses may turn on details. Thus it is important to be
specific in description and argumentation. The test should be whether the
details are useful to the reader.
(b)
Start at the beginning. Make sure the paper provides a foundation for each
of its arguments and analyses. You may assume some basic knowledge on
the part of the reader, but remember that as the author you know more than
almost anyone else about the subject. It is easy yet dangerous to skip steps
that seem obvious, as that may confuse readers (and, in some cases, cause
you to miss an important point as well). You may also feel that it is more
interesting to start in the middle of an argument and work backwards, but
that strategy is rarely successful. At the same time, the paper should not
devote much space to basic steps (see 3(a)). The key is to provide a
2
foundation quickly and spend more time on the detailed and complex parts
of the argument.
(c)
Avoid repetition. A small amount of repetition may be unavoidable and
indeed may be useful. Sometimes readers need to be reminded of points
made earlier in the paper, and sometimes making the same point in several
different ways can reinforce the message to the reader. But it is easy for a
little repetition to become needless redundancy. If the body of the paper is
making the same points in different places, other than as brief crossreferences, there is likely a problem with its organization.
(d)
Consider using textual footnotes. One strategy for dealing with tangential
points while maintaining focus is to use textual footnotes. That is, if a
tangential point seems important enough to stay in the paper but it is
interrupting the flow of the argument, consider putting the argument in a
footnote. This strategy should not be overused and it may be inappropriate
depending on the audience. However, used sparingly it can provide a
middle ground between including a point in the text and omitting it
altogether. Moreover, putting a point in a footnote will allow the author to
think closely about whether the point is actually necessary, and thus may
lead more easily to a later decision to eliminate it. One colleague refers to
this strategy as “Putting the point in a footnote and then deleting the
footnote.”
4. Clarity.
(a)
The central point of the paper is to convey information to the reader. Thus
clear writing is essential. No set of guidelines can define clear writing,
although (as set forth below) one can identify some things to embrace and to
avoid. The best strategy is to read the paper as if you were a reader – that is,
someone with little knowledge about the topic and a desire to learn about it.
(b)
In the interest of clarity, it is best to avoid:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(c)
Jargon (legal, bureaucratic, academic, and otherwise);
Complex sentence structure, particularly involving multiple clauses;
Obscure words or references;
Vague, imprecise or abstract words and phrases that are subject to
multiple interpretations or applications.
In the interest of clarity, it is best to:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Use simple, direct words and sentence/paragraph structures;
Write the way you would talk (in a formal setting);
Be specific and give examples;
Be concise.
3