Mapping Your Legal Arguments

How to Outline a Law Review Article (Part 4 of 6)

Legal arguments are constructed, not discovered.

They emerge from the careful layering of evidence, reasoning, and anticipation of counterarguments. It is a process that slowly transforms initial insights into persuasive scholarly contributions.

In our previous installments, we’ve moved from (1) topic selection through (2) thesis development to (3) comprehensive problem framing. You’ve learned to identify meaningful research questions, develop compelling working theses, and establish the intellectual architecture that frames your legal issue.

Now we arrive at the heart of legal scholarship: (4) constructing the arguments that will persuade your readers. Act II of your law review article (based upon Motro’s three-act structure) is where you move beyond identifying problems to building the case for your particular solution or analysis.

This part of your law review article is critically important.

Consider how transformative legal arguments reshape entire fields of law. When feminist legal scholar Catharine MacKinnon and her collaborators argued in the late 1970s that sexual harassment constituted sex discrimination under Title VII, they weren’t simply applying existing doctrine. MacKinnon’s groundbreaking 1979 work, Sexual Harassment of Working Women, constructed a multi-layered argument that integrated statutory interpretation with workplace sociology research by scholars like Lin Farley at Cornell University and feminist legal theory.

MacKinnon’s argument succeeded because it anticipated and addressed counterarguments while building from multiple complementary foundations. It ultimately culminated in the Supreme Court’s adoption of MacKinnon’s framework in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986), where the Court recognized both quid pro quo harassment and hostile work environment claims as forms of sex discrimination, fundamentally reshaping employment law.

But how do we construct arguments that achieve this level of persuasive power?

This fourth installment explores techniques for developing robust, multi-dimensional arguments that form the core of your scholarly contribution. You’ll learn to map argument structures, integrate different types of legal reasoning, and systematically address counterarguments in ways that strengthen rather than undermine your position.

By mastering argument construction, you transform your insights into scholarship that doesn’t just analyze legal problems. It provides compelling reasons for why the legal community should adopt your proposed solutions.

Let’s dive in!

---

The Architecture of Legal Arguments

Legal arguments in scholarly writing differ fundamentally from courtroom advocacy or policy briefs. While litigation arguments aim to win specific cases and policy arguments seek immediate practical changes, law review arguments must satisfy multiple audiences with different standards of persuasion.

Your argument must convince doctrinal scholars through careful textual analysis, theoretical scholars through conceptual rigor, and practical-minded readers through attention to real-world consequences.

This multi-audience challenge requires multi-dimensional argument construction: building arguments that operate across doctrinal, theoretical, and practical dimensions simultaneously.

The Three Dimensions of Legal Argument

There are three core dimensions of legal argument that you should keep in mind:

1. Doctrinal Dimension: How does your argument engage with existing legal rules, precedents, and interpretive methodologies? This includes statutory interpretation, case law analysis, and constitutional reasoning.

2. Theoretical Dimension: What normative frameworks, jurisprudential principles, or conceptual insights support your position? This includes moral philosophy, political theory, and legal theory.

3. Practical Dimension: How does your argument address real-world consequences, implementation challenges, and empirical evidence? This includes social science data, economic analysis, and institutional considerations.

Effective law review arguments don’t simply touch on each dimension. They demonstrate how insights from each dimension reinforce and strengthen the others in innovative and unconventional ways.

---

Framework for Multi-Layered Argument Construction

The most persuasive legal arguments rarely rely on a single line of reasoning. Instead, they construct “argument ecosystems”—interconnected networks of mutually reinforcing claims that address the issue from multiple angles.

Here is a simple framework that can help you remember this goal.

The DEAR Framework for Argument Development

1. Doctrinal Foundation: Establish how existing legal materials support your position

2. Empirical Evidence: Incorporate relevant data and real-world evidence

3. Anticipated Counterarguments: Address the strongest objections to your position

4. Reinforcing Theory: Connect your argument to broader normative frameworks

Let’s explore how this framework might apply to our ongoing “Breaking the Machine” case study (please refer to Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3 of this series for more context):

Doctrinal Foundation:

• Delaware corporate law’s business judgment rule creates presumptions that insulate management decisions

• Federal securities law emphasizes disclosure rather than substantive governance requirements

• Labor law restricts worker organizing while protecting corporate property rights

Empirical Evidence:

• Data showing increased wealth inequality correlating with weakened labor organizing

• Studies demonstrating limited effectiveness of traditional corporate governance reforms

• Historical evidence of successful direct action through labor organizing to achieve worker concessions

Anticipated Counterarguments:

• Concerns about economic efficiency and competitiveness

• Arguments about legal stability and predictability

• Worries about radical disruption of established institutions

Reinforcing Theory:

• Economic democracy theory supporting worker participation in governance

• Critical legal studies critique of law’s role in maintaining power hierarchies

• Historical institutionalism showing how seemingly stable arrangements can rapidly change

This framework ensures your argument addresses multiple dimensions while maintaining internal coherence.

---

Argument Mapping: Visualizing Logical Relationships

Before drafting Act II, creating visual maps of your argument structure helps identify logical relationships, potential gaps, and opportunities for strengthening your reasoning.

Argument mapping differs from simple outlining because it explicitly shows how different claims relate to and support each other.

Argument Mapping Techniques

Here are a few examples of argument mapping:

A. Hierarchical Mapping: Shows how sub-arguments support main claims

B. Network Mapping: Illustrates how different arguments reinforce each other across dimensional boundaries

C. Dialectical Mapping: Shows the relationship between arguments and counterarguments, revealing opportunities for synthesis or stronger responses

---

Mapping the “Breaking the Machine” Arguments

Let’s develop a preliminary argument map for our ongoing case study:

CENTRAL CLAIM: Corporate governance reform must move beyond reformist adjustments to fundamentally restructure corporate power relationships

Supporting Arguments:

Argument A: Historical Pattern Analysis

• Evidence: Previous reform cycles (Sarbanes-Oxley, Dodd-Frank) failed to prevent subsequent crises

• Evidence: Labor history shows direct action achieved results when formal channels failed

• Counterargument Response: Addresses concerns about stability by showing how current system creates its own instability

Argument B: Power Structure Analysis

• Evidence: Current corporate governance concentrates power among elites

• Evidence: Workers and communities bear costs but lack decision-making authority

• Counterargument Response: Addresses efficiency concerns by showing how democratic participation can improve outcomes

Argument C: Legal Precedent Analysis

• Evidence: American legal tradition includes mechanisms for fundamental restructuring (antitrust, bankruptcy)

• Evidence: International examples of worker representation in corporate governance

• Counterargument Response: Addresses feasibility concerns by showing existing legal frameworks

This mapping reveals how different types of evidence and reasoning work together to support the central claim while systematically addressing likely objections.

---

Constructing Individual Arguments: The CREACC Method

Traditional legal writing often uses CREAC (Conclusion, Rule, Application, Conclusion) for structuring individual arguments (The lawyers among us will also remember “IRAC” from law school).

For law review writing, we need a more sophisticated approach that we’ll call Scholarly CREACC:

• Claim (Conclusion): State your specific argumentative position clearly.

• Reasoning (Rule): Explain the logical foundation or legal rule supporting your claim.

• Explanation: Provide context for the rule—why it exists, how it functions, and what values it reflects.

• Analysis (Application): Engage deeply with relevant materials (cases, statutes, theory, data).

• Counter-analysis: Address the strongest objections and alternative interpretations.

• Conclusion: Synthesize insights and connect to the broader argument.

---

Example: Developing a Scholarly CREACC Argument

Here is an example using our case study:

• Claim (Conclusion):
  Delaware’s business judgment rule exemplifies how corporate law protects reformist reforms while preventing non-reformist restructuring.

• Reasoning (Rule):
  The business judgment rule creates a presumption favoring management decisions unless they involve conflicts of interest or procedural violations. This framework allows cosmetic governance changes while insulating fundamental power structures from legal challenge.

• Explanation:
  The rule is grounded in a belief that corporate managers are better positioned than judges to make complex business decisions. It reflects a judicial commitment to deference in the name of efficiency and shareholder value, but this deference has the structural effect of reinforcing managerial dominance and shielding the corporate form from democratic critique.

• Analysis (Application):
  [This section would include detailed examination of key Delaware cases, showing how courts apply the rule to different types of governance decisions, with particular attention to how challenges to fundamental corporate structures are treated differently from challenges to specific management decisions.]

• Counter-analysis:
  Critics might argue that the business judgment rule simply reflects practical limitations on judicial oversight of complex business decisions. However, this critique misses how the rule’s current formulation specifically protects certain types of decisions (those preserving existing power structures) while subjecting others (those involving traditional conflicts of interest) to heightened scrutiny.

• Conclusion:
  The business judgment rule thus operates as a legal mechanism that enables reformist reforms while preventing more fundamental challenges to corporate governance structures, supporting the broader argument that legal frameworks systematically channel reform efforts away from transformative change.

This structure ensures each argument contributes meaningfully to your overall thesis while addressing sophisticated objections.

---

Identifying and Integrating Supporting Evidence

Strong legal arguments require multiple types of supporting evidence working in concert. The key is not simply accumulating evidence, but selecting and integrating materials that address different dimensions of your argument.

Types of Legal Evidence and Their Strategic Uses

A. Primary Legal Authorities (Cases, Statutes, Constitutional Provisions):

• Use for establishing doctrinal foundations

• Essential for showing how existing legal materials support or complicate your position

• Most persuasive when you identify patterns across multiple authorities

B. Secondary Legal Authorities (Law Review Articles, Treatises, Legal Commentary):

• Use for positioning your work within scholarly conversations

• Helpful for establishing consensus views and identifying gaps

• Strengthen your argument by showing how other scholars have addressed related issues

C. Empirical Evidence (Social Science Data, Economic Studies, Statistical Analysis):

• Use for demonstrating real-world impacts and consequences

• Essential for practical dimension of multi-dimensional arguments

• Most effective when you explain how the data relates to legal standards or normative concerns

D. Historical Evidence (Legislative History, Historical Legal Developments, Social History):

• Use for showing how legal issues have evolved over time

• Powerful for challenging assumptions about inevitable or natural legal arrangements

• Particularly valuable for critical and theoretical arguments

E. Comparative Evidence (Other Jurisdictions, International Examples, Alternative Approaches):

• Use for demonstrating feasibility of proposed reforms

• Helpful for addressing implementation concerns

• Effective for showing that current approaches aren’t inevitable

---

Evidence Integration Strategies

Rather than simply accumulating evidence, focus on strategic integration:

1. Triangulation: Use different types of evidence to support the same point, showing convergence across multiple sources and methodologies.

2. Progression: Arrange evidence to build progressively stronger support, moving from weaker to stronger forms of support.

3. Dialogue: Show how different pieces of evidence respond to and reinforce each other, creating conversations between different sources.

4. Tension Resolution: Acknowledge when different types of evidence point in different directions, then explain how to resolve these tensions in ways that support your argument.

---

Anticipating and Addressing Counterarguments

The strongest law review arguments don’t avoid counterarguments. They anticipate and address them strategically.

This requires moving beyond defensive responses to counterargument engagement that actually strengthens your position.

Counterargument Identification Techniques

1. Steelmanning: Construct the strongest possible version of arguments against your position, ensuring you’re addressing serious objections rather than straw men.

2. Perspective Taking: Systematically consider how different audiences (practitioners, judges, scholars from different theoretical camps) might object to your argument.

3. Precedent Analysis: Examine how similar arguments have been challenged in existing scholarship, identifying patterns in objections.

4. Stakeholder Mapping: Consider how different affected parties might object to your proposed changes, anticipating practical and political resistance.

Strategic Counterargument Responses

1. Concession and Distinction: Acknowledge legitimate concerns while showing how your argument addresses them or applies to different circumstances.

2. Reframing: Show how apparent counterarguments actually support your position when viewed from a different perspective.

3. Comparative Advantage: Acknowledge problems with your approach while demonstrating that alternatives face even greater difficulties.

4. Synthesis: Incorporate insights from counterarguments to develop more nuanced versions of your original position.

---

Case Study Example: Strategic Counterargument Engagement

Anticipated Counterargument: “Non-reformist corporate governance changes would undermine economic efficiency and competitiveness.”

Strategic Response:

1. Concession: Acknowledge that any significant governance changes involve transition costs and potential efficiency effects

2. Reframing: Demonstrate how current “efficient” arrangements actually impose hidden costs on workers and communities that aren’t reflected in traditional economic metrics

3. Comparative Advantage: Show how democratic participation in governance can improve long-term efficiency by incorporating broader stakeholder knowledge

4. Synthesis: Develop a nuanced position that recognizes efficiency concerns while arguing for changes that enhance rather than undermine productive economic activity

This approach transforms potential weaknesses into opportunities to demonstrate the sophistication of your analysis.

---

Structuring Act II: From Arguments to Architecture

With individual arguments developed, you need to organize them into a coherent Act II structure that builds persuasively toward your conclusions.

The key is creating logical progression while maintaining reader engagement.

Common Act II Organizational Patterns

1. Progressive Strength: Begin with weaker arguments and build toward your strongest points, creating momentum.

2. Dimensional Organization: Address doctrinal, theoretical, and practical dimensions in sequence, showing how they reinforce each other.

3. Dialectical Structure: Present argument-counterargument pairs, using the tension to develop more sophisticated positions.

4. Problem-Solution Sequence: Identify specific problems with status quo approaches, then develop corresponding solutions.

---

Act II Outline for “Breaking the Machine”

PART II: THE CASE FOR BREAKING THE MACHINE

A. The Limits of Reformist Corporate Governance (Diagnostic Arguments)

1. Pattern Analysis: The Reform-Crisis Cycle

• Doctrinal: How legal reforms maintain core power structures while appearing to address problems

• Empirical: Data showing limited effectiveness of major corporate governance reforms

• Theoretical: Critical legal studies analysis of law’s role in legitimizing existing arrangements

• Counterargument Response: Address claims that reforms need more time to work

2. Power Structure Analysis: Who Benefits from Reformist Approaches

• Doctrinal: How corporate law channels challenges away from fundamental power questions

• Empirical: Data on wealth distribution and corporate power concentration

• Theoretical: Political economy analysis of how legal rules serve elite interests

• Counterargument Response: Address efficiency and competitiveness concerns

B. Learning from American Labor History (Historical Precedent Arguments)

1. Direct Action as Democratic Response to Corporate Power

• Historical: Examples of successful direct action when formal channels failed

• Doctrinal: How legal system evolved to protect corporate property while restricting worker action

• Theoretical: Economic democracy theory supporting worker participation

• Counterargument Response: Address concerns about legal stability and rule of law

2. Lessons for Contemporary Corporate Governance

• Comparative: How other democracies incorporate worker voice in corporate governance

• Empirical: Evidence on effectiveness of democratic participation in organizational decision-making

• Doctrinal: Existing legal mechanisms that could support expanded worker participation

• Counterargument Response: Address feasibility and implementation concerns

C. The Affirmative Case for Non-Reformist Approaches (Constructive Arguments)

1. Principles for Democratic Corporate Governance

• Theoretical: Normative framework for evaluating governance arrangements

• Doctrinal: Constitutional and statutory foundations for expanded economic democracy

• Empirical: Case studies of successful democratic governance arrangements

• Counterargument Response: Address concerns about radical disruption

2. Pathways to Implementation

• Doctrinal: Legal mechanisms for achieving non-reformist reforms

• Practical: Political and strategic considerations for implementation

• Comparative: International examples and lessons learned

• Counterargument Response: Address concerns about political feasibility

This structure builds from critique through historical analysis to constructive proposals, with each section addressing multiple dimensions while systematically responding to counterarguments.

---

Testing Your Arguments: Feedback and Refinement

Before drafting, test your argument structure through focused feedback sessions. Effective feedback goes beyond general impressions to address specific dimensions of argument strength.

Structured Argument Review Process

1. Logical Coherence Review: Do the individual arguments support the central claim? Are there logical gaps or inconsistencies?

2. Evidence Assessment: Is the supporting evidence sufficient and appropriately integrated? Are sources credible and properly contextualized?

3. Counterargument Evaluation: Have you addressed the strongest objections? Are your responses persuasive or merely defensive?

4. Audience Analysis: Will your arguments persuade the relevant scholarly and practical audiences? Are you addressing their likely concerns and interests?

5. Contribution Clarity: Do your arguments clearly advance knowledge beyond existing scholarship? Is the distinctive contribution apparent?

Peer Feedback Questions

When exchanging drafts with colleagues, focus on these specific questions:

1. Which argument do you find most/least persuasive, and why?

2. What counterarguments am I missing or not addressing adequately?

3. Where do you need more evidence or different types of evidence?

4. How clearly does my argument structure guide you through the analysis?

5. What aspects of my argument seem unclear or confusing?

This structured approach yields more useful feedback than general impressions.

---

From Arguments to Transitions: Connecting Act II to the Whole

Strong arguments require effective transitions that show readers how individual points connect to broader themes. This is particularly important in Act II, where you’re building multiple interconnected arguments toward your larger thesis.

Transition Strategies for Complex Arguments

1. Cumulative Transitions: Show how each argument builds on previous points: “Having established X, we can now see how Y reinforces this conclusion...”

2. Dimensional Transitions: Move between doctrinal, theoretical, and practical analysis: “While the doctrinal analysis supports this conclusion, the practical evidence raises additional considerations...”

3. Anticipatory Transitions: Prepare readers for shifts in focus: “Before turning to the constructive proposals, we must address the most serious objection to this analysis...”

4. Synthetic Transitions: Show how different arguments work together: “These separate lines of analysis converge on a common conclusion...”

Effective transitions help readers understand not just what you’re arguing, but why you’re developing arguments in this particular sequence.

---

Conclusion: From Arguments to Action

Act II represents the heart of your scholarly contribution. It is the space where you transform insights into persuasive arguments that can reshape legal understanding.

By constructing multi-dimensional arguments that integrate doctrinal, theoretical, and practical considerations while systematically addressing counterarguments, you create scholarship that satisfies multiple audiences and advances legal knowledge.

The techniques outlined in this installment provide tools for building arguments that don’t just analyze legal problems but offer compelling reasons for adopting your proposed solutions.

Remember that argument construction is an iterative process.

Your initial argument maps and outlines provide frameworks for development, not rigid constraints. As you draft and refine your arguments, new insights will emerge that strengthen your analysis and reveal additional connections between different dimensions of your reasoning.

In our next installment, we’ll explore how to transform your robust Act II arguments into practical solutions and concrete proposals in Act III, completing the three-act structure that guides readers from problem identification through analysis to actionable conclusions.

---

Writing Assignment

Building on your Act I outline from the previous installment, develop a comprehensive foundation for Act II:

1. Create a detailed argument map for your core arguments, showing how different claims support your central thesis and relate to each other across doctrinal, theoretical, and practical dimensions.

2. Develop three complete “Scholarly CRAECC” arguments using the Claim-Reasoning-Analysis-Explanation-Counteranalysis-Conclusion structure, ensuring each addresses different aspects of your thesis.

3. Draft a preliminary outline for your complete Act II, organizing your arguments into a logical progression that builds persuasively toward your conclusions while systematically addressing counterarguments.

4. Begin brainstorming Act III concepts, considering how your Act II arguments will transition into concrete proposals, solutions, or reforms that complete your article’s arc from problem identification to actionable conclusions.

Remember that these are working drafts designed to establish the argumentative foundation for your article. The goal is creating robust, multi-dimensional arguments that will persuade your scholarly audience while advancing knowledge in your field.

See you in Part 5!

Becoming Full,

---

P.S. As always, thank you for reading this week’s issue of The Tenure Track. If you found this article helpful, share it with a friend. If it moved you, consider supporting with a paid subscription or buying me a coffee. Together, let’s continue to build a supportive and creative academic community.

Your support helps me create content that serves fellow scholars on the path.