Academic Legal Writing - Eugene Volokh [61]
Make clear what you mean by each term: What constitutes paternalism (whether good paternalism or bad)? How do you decide what's democratically legitimate and what isn't? Does “fundamental fairness” refer to an existing body of law that defines the term, or just to your moral judgment? If it's the latter, what is that moral judgment, and why is it right? Are evolving standards of decency the standards of decency expressed in legislation throughout the states, or are they whatever standards the judges believe are decent? What is required to make a law narrowly tailored?
Many of these terms can't be defined precisely, and that may be fine. But if you find that they are too vague, you might ask yourself whether they really help your argument; and in any case, trying to give a clarifying definition can help you refine your argument, both for your own understanding and to make the argument easier for readers to follow.
H. Undefended Assertions, and “Arguably”/“Raises Concerns”
If you make an assertion, you need to be sure that it's adequately defended (unless it's obvious). Including “arguably” or “it can be argued that” isn't enough: It acknowledges that the statement is controversial, but it doesn't explain why the reader should accept your side of the controversy. If you think something is arguably true, then give the argument, and explain why it's better than the counterargument.
Likewise, it isn't enough to argue that some proposal “raises constitutional concerns” or “is troubling.” If you think the proposal is actually unconstitutional, or actually unsound, explain why you think so.* It's not enough just to hint at the possibility, and to expect this hint to carry your argument.
I. Proofread, Proofread, Proofread
All these points reinforce the need to go through many drafts, looking at your arguments with new eyes. The only way you can catch problems like these—or the writing errors mentioned below—is by repeatedly and carefully reading your own work.
XII. WRITING: PARAGRAPH-LEVEL PROBLEMS TO WATCH FOR
A. Paragraphs Without a Common Theme
Each paragraph should be about one main thought. The first sentence should usually express that thought; that's why it's often called the topic sentence. The other sentences should fit with that thought. If they don't, then they belong in a different paragraph.
B. Long Paragraphs
Avoid long paragraphs. People tend to digest one paragraph at a time, and if they see that they'll have to absorb twenty sentences, they may get intimidated and skip to the next paragraph.
Writers disagree to some extent about the best average paragraph length. I recommend two to four sentences; others like five or six. But I'm pretty sure that (1) one-sentence paragraphs are usually too choppy, though they're sometimes good when introducing several longer paragraphs, and (2) once you get past six medium-length sentences or four longish ones, you'll be taxing many readers' attention spans.
A paragraph that's about one big thought can often be easily split into several paragraphs, each one about a smaller thought. Try to make sure that the split follows the natural structure of the discussion, and that each of the new paragraphs starts with a topic sentence.
Occasionally, you might want to split a paragraph where there's no natural paragraph break. If, for instance, you have a topic sentence followed by half a dozen sentence-long illustrations, you could split the paragraph just to give the reader a breather. Look over the result, though, and make sure that it doesn't seem too disconnected.
C. Inadequate Connections Between Paragraphs
Each paragraph should be logically linked to the one before it. When the reader starts reading a paragraph, he should understand its relationship to the preceding one.
This doesn't mean that you must start each paragraph with a transition like “Moreover” or “On the other hand.” Transitions are sometimes helpful,