Ylj Argument Structure

---
name: ylj-argument-structure
description: Use when organizing the Parts of a The Yale Law Journal (YLJ) article into a doctrine→theory→normative arc. It sequences the argument and pressure-tests counterarguments; it does not polish prose (use ylj-writing-style) or format citations (use ylj-sources-and-bluebook).
---

# Argument Structure (ylj-argument-structure)

A YLJ Article is a sustained legal argument, not a report. The dominant arc is
**doctrine → theory → normative**: show what the law *is* (and where it breaks), explain *why* with a
framework, then say what *should* change. This skill sequences the Parts and stress-tests
counterarguments. It assumes the claim and novelty are settled (`ylj-thesis-and-contribution`,
`ylj-preemption-check`).

## When to trigger

- The claim is set but the Parts have no logical spine
- A reader reaches Part III without knowing why Parts I–II were necessary
- The normative payoff arrives without the descriptive/theoretical groundwork to support it
- Reviewers (or your own outline) reveal an unaddressed counterargument

## The doctrine→theory→normative arc

| Part | Job | Failure mode |
|------|-----|--------------|
| **I. The landscape (doctrine/facts)** | Map the current law or practice; surface the tension your claim resolves | A neutral survey with no tension — reader can't see the problem |
| **II. The diagnosis (theory)** | Explain *why* the tension exists; introduce your framework | Description restated as "theory" with no organizing idea |
| **III. The reconstruction (normative)** | Apply the framework; say what should change and who acts | A wish list untethered from Parts I–II |
| **IV. Objections & limits** | Steelman the best counterarguments; bound the claim | Strawmen, or silence on the obvious objection |

Not every piece needs four Parts, but every piece needs the **logical moves**: problem → why → fix →
limits. An Essay compresses these; a Note often foregrounds doctrine then a focused reform.

## Sequencing rules

- **Front-load the payoff.** The introduction states the claim, the roadmap, and the stakes — a
  generalist editor decides in the first few pages. Do not make the reader wait for Part IV.
- **Each Part earns the next.** End each Part by naming the question it leaves open that the next Part
  answers. If a Part can be cut without breaking the chain, cut it.
- **Counterarguments are load-bearing.** Address the strongest objection *before* the reader raises it;
  a piece that ducks the obvious counterargument reads as naive to a Yale editor.
- **Doctrine must be accurate.** Every "the law is X" is a footnoted, pinpoint-cited claim
  (`ylj-sources-and-bluebook`); a structural argument resting on a misread case collapses.

## Roadmap paragraph

Draft the introduction's roadmap as numbered moves: "Part I shows ___. Part II argues ___. Part III
proposes ___. Part IV answers ___." If you cannot fill each blank with a *claim* (not a topic), the
structure is not yet load-bearing.

## Checklist

- [ ] Introduction states claim + stakes + roadmap up front
- [ ] Parts follow problem → why → fix → limits (compressed for Essays)
- [ ] Each Part ends by motivating the next; no orphan Part
- [ ] The single strongest counterargument has its own treatment
- [ ] The claim's scope/limits are stated, not left for a reviewer to find

## Anti-patterns

- A long doctrinal Part I that reads as a treatise, with the argument only starting at Part III
- "Theory" that is description with headings — no framework that does explanatory work
- A normative Part untethered from the diagnosis (recommendations Parts I–II didn't set up)
- Ignoring the obvious objection, or knocking down a strawman version of it
- A roadmap of topics ("Part II discusses X") rather than claims ("Part II argues X")

## Output format

```
【Arc】doctrine→theory→normative (or the compressed version used)
【Part map】I: ___ | II: ___ | III: ___ | IV: ___ (each a claim)
【Strongest objection】and where it is addressed
【Scope/limits】stated explicitly? Y/N
【Next】ylj-sources-and-bluebook to footnote every legal/factual assertion
```

## Supplementary resources

- [`../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md`](../../resources/worked-examples/01-introduction.md) — a roadmap built as claims, not topics
- [`../../resources/exemplars/library.md`](../../resources/exemplars/library.md) — YLJ pieces whose Part structure rewards study