Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [27]
The Introduction is the place where you construct this basic frame—where you give a simple summary that puts the reader in the right mindset to absorb and agree with your point. Write with this in mind.
E. Do All This Quickly and Forcefully
The first few sentences of the Introduction can make the reader drop the article, or keep reading it. Don't start with platitudes or generalities that the reader already knows. Start with something that is concrete, and that quickly communicates your perspective.
Consider, for instance, a draft introduction I once ran across (I've numbered the sentences to more easily discuss them):
[1] Campaign speech has long been a controversial topic among scholars and commentators. [2] Much attention has been devoted to the Supreme Court's treatment of individual expenditures, contributions and spending in Buckley v. Valeo. [3] Congress' recent consideration of campaign finance reform provides an ideal opportunity to revisit the 1976 Supreme Court decision that addressed the free speech implications of limits on federal campaign-related activities.
[4] This essay briefly discusses the effects of such limits on individual speech, the disproportionate treatment of speech by the media and justifications presented by several members of the Court in the 2000 decision, Nixon v. Shrink Missouri Government PAC.
[5] Let me begin by giving a concrete situation. [6] Imagine you are outraged about a particular candidate's stand on something. [More concrete details follow, aimed at showing that there's a basic First Amendment right to spend money to express your views about candidates.] ...
The first two sentences say something that's obvious to most readers, even those who barely know the field. The third and fourth sentences describe something less obvious—what the article's general topic will be—but they're clunky and boring. The fifth sentence likewise adds little.
It's only the sixth sentence—“Imagine you are outraged”—that has the power to grab the listener. It provides a concrete scenario, which is usually more interesting than generalizations. It also quickly sets the stage for the core argument, which is that you have a right to spend your money to express your views.
Start the Introduction with this sentence, rather than hiding it after five sentences of generalities. If you need to make some general points, make them later, after you've gotten the reader hooked.
F. Some Ways to Start the Introduction
Finally, a few tips for good ways to start an Introduction. These are not at all the only options, but they often work, and they illustrate some of the guidelines mentioned above.
1. Start with the concrete questions you will try to answer
State with the concrete questions you will try to answer, for instance:
What may government officials do to prevent speech that they think is evil and dangerous? What may businesses, organizations, or individuals do? ...
This says what the article will be about. It also shows the article will be useful, since most readers will quickly understand that these issues come up often. Later sentences should make this still more concrete, and make it still clearer that the article will be useful.
One possible problem: The reference to “evil and dangerous” speech is a little vague. You should make sure that subsequent sentences give examples, or maybe even work the examples into the opening question itself (“What may government officials do to prevent speech that they think is evil and dangerous, such as bigoted speech, speech that calls for revolution, or speech that advocates violence?”).
Here's a worse way to start the same article:
The freedom of speech is a vital part of the fabric of American democracy. Undoubtedly a wide range of speech cannot be barred by the government. In Brandenburg v. Ohio, the Court held that even advocacy of violence may not be restricted unless the advocacy is intended to and likely to provoke imminent violent conduct.
Yet