| name | hlr-argument-structure |
| description | Use when organizing the body of a Harvard Law Review (HLR) piece along the doctrine to theory to normative-prescription arc that legal scholarship rewards. Structures the argument and its internal logic; it does not forge the thesis (hlr-thesis-and-contribution) or format the citations (hlr-sources-and-bluebook). |
Argument Structure (hlr-argument-structure)
A flagship legal article does three things in order: maps the doctrine, diagnoses the problem with
a theory or principle, and prescribes what should change. This doctrine → theory → prescription arc
is the spine readers and student editors expect. This skill organizes the body so each Part does one job
and the prescription is earned by what precedes it.
When to trigger
- The thesis is set but the body sprawls or repeats itself
- Readers lose the thread between the doctrinal Part and the argument
- The prescription appears without the diagnosis that should justify it
- You need to decide Part order and what each Part is responsible for
The doctrine → theory → prescription arc
| Part | Job | Failure mode if skipped |
|---|
| I. Doctrine / landscape | Lay out the law as it is, precisely and fairly, including the split or tension | A strawman the rest of the piece knocks down |
| II. Diagnosis / theory | Explain why the doctrine fails — the principle, value, or logic it betrays | An assertion that the law is "wrong" with no theory |
| III. Prescription | Argue for the fix and show it works on the hard cases | A reform proposal floating free of the diagnosis |
| IV. Objections / scope | Adjudicate the strongest counterargument and bound the claim | A reviewer's obvious objection left unanswered |
Construction rules
- Each Part earns the next. The prescription must follow from the diagnosis, which must follow from
the doctrinal map. If you could move a Part without loss, the logic is loose.
- State the law fairly before you attack it. Student editors and generalist readers distrust pieces
that caricature current doctrine. The strongest version of the status quo makes your critique credible.
- Make the theory do work. A normative principle is not décor — it must generate the prescription and
resolve the hard cases the doctrine cannot.
- Pressure-test on the hard case. Apply your prescription to the fact pattern that most threatens it;
if it survives, the piece is strong; if it doesn't, narrow the claim (loop
hlr-thesis-and-contribution).
- Adjudicate the single strongest objection, not a row of weak ones. Name it, take it seriously, and
show why the thesis holds (or where it must be qualified).
Engaging the literature inside the argument
Engage prior scholarship where it bears on the move, not in a front-loaded lit-review dump. When you
diagnose, cite the works that framed the problem; when you prescribe, distinguish the nearest rival
proposals (the neighbors found in hlr-preemption-check). Footnotes carry most of this engagement.
Checklist
Anti-patterns
- A descriptive Part I that never becomes an argument (the "survey then opine" structure)
- Prescription with no diagnosis — "courts should do X" without showing why the current rule fails
- Strawmanning the doctrine so the critique lands on a position no one holds
- A wall of weak objections instead of the one that actually threatens the thesis
- Front-loaded literature review disconnected from the argument's moves
Output format
【Arc】Part I doctrine → Part II theory/diagnosis → Part III prescription → Part IV objections/scope
【Each Part's job】one line each
【Hardest case】the fact pattern that tests the prescription
【Strongest objection】and how it is adjudicated
【Scope】where the claim reaches and where it stops
【Next】hlr-sources-and-bluebook → hlr-footnotes-and-cite-check
Supplementary resources
