---

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 — a roadmap built as claims, not topics
• ../../resources/exemplars/library.md — YLJ pieces whose Part structure rewards study