Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [177]
APPENDIX II: ANSWERS TO EXERCISES
A. Editing Exercises
1. Basic Editing, p. 141
Let's start by rewriting the opening paragraph of the first paper:
The Child Firearms Safety Act as currently written is a well intentioned piece of legislation which will likely have little effect on the incidence of minors accidentally killed by handguns. However, with some critical modifications the act could play a significant role in lowering the number of minors lost to handgun accidents each year. These modifications should include: compelling either that the gun be kept in a locked container or unloaded; the inclusion of long guns in the Act; and making violation of the Act a felony offense.
1. Consider the first sentence:
The Child Firearms Safety Act as currently written is a well intentioned piece of legislation which will likely have little effect on the incidence of minors accidentally killed by handguns.
What information does it convey to the reader?
a. The Act is well-intentioned.
b. It won't protect minors much from accidental handgun deaths.
Comparing this brief summary with the full sentence shows two areas of flab. First, we see unnecessary words. The summary says “the Act” instead of “the Act as currently written,” with no loss of clarity: The phrase “as currently written” restates the obvious—mentioning some law generally refers to the law as currently written, unless there's some reason to think otherwise. The author probably wanted to distinguish the current version from the proposed change, but this distinction is clear enough even without the “as currently written.” Likewise, “piece of legislation” is a long way to say “law” or “bill.”
Second, we see an unhelpful idea. The first sentence in our summary—“the Act is well-intentioned”—doesn't convey much valuable information. Whether the law is well-intentioned is probably as clear to the reader as it is to the writer, and it in any event doesn't much matter, given the terms of the assignment (“write a short memo advising the Senator whether she should vote for the law”).
The author probably wanted to acknowledge the drafters' good intentions as a polite gesture, before criticizing their handiwork; but such a gesture is unneeded in a memo to one's boss. Cut these phrases, which leaves us with:
The Child Firearms Safety Act will likely have little effect on the incidence of minors accidentally killed by handguns.
2. Do normal people talk about things “having little effect on the incidence of” other things? Say instead
The Child Firearms Safety Act probably will not significantly protect minors against fatal handgun accidents.
or
The Child Firearms Safety Act probably will not significantly reduce fatal handgun accidents involving minors.
or
The Child Firearms Safety Act will probably do little to protect minors from fatal handgun accidents.
The bureaucratese noun phrase “incidence of” is cut, and the noun phrase “little effect on”—which doesn't explicitly say what kind of effect you're looking for—is replaced with the verb phrases “will not significantly protect [or reduce]” or “will do little to protect.” None of these is perfect, but all are clearer, more concrete, and more active than the original.
3. Consider the second sentence together with the revised first one:
The Child Firearms Safety Act will probably do little to protect minors from fatal handgun accidents. However, with some critical modifications the act could play a significant role in lowering the number of minors lost to handgun accidents each year.
Note the redundancy: The first sentence talks about “protect[ing] minors against fatal handgun accidents” (or, in the original version, “hav[ing an] effect on the incidence of ... fatal handgun accidents”). The second talks about “play[ing] a significant