> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://jennyrice.gitbook.io/wrd-418-legal-writing/chapter-7-legal-briefs-and-persuasive-legal-writing/organizing-your-arguments-an-overview.md).

# Organizing Your Arguments: An Overview

## <mark style="color:blue;">1. Organizing your brief's argument section</mark>

The heart of a legal brief is the argument section, which makes the most direct case for your side. A good way to picture this section is as an inverted triangle:

* At the very top is the big picture goal—persuading the court to answer the *Questions Presented* in a way that helps your side.
* Beneath that, you’ll need to give the court reasons or “points” explaining *why* it should rule in your favor.
* Finally, each reason can be broken down into smaller sub-points that support and elaborate on your points.

To make this less abstract, imagine a non-legal example. A 14-year-old freshman wants to convince his parents to let him have a cell phone. The “big picture” argument is simple:

> <mark style="color:green;">**"I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A CELL PHONE."**</mark>

But he knows his parents won’t be persuaded unless he offers good reasons. So, he drafts an outline of his points:

> <mark style="color:$success;">I.</mark> <mark style="color:$success;"></mark><mark style="color:$success;">**Cell phones are useful in emergencies or when I need to get in touch with you.**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:$success;">II.</mark> <mark style="color:$success;"></mark><mark style="color:$success;">**I have proven myself responsible with schoolwork and household rules.**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:$success;">III.</mark> <mark style="color:$success;"></mark><mark style="color:$success;">**My sister got a cell phone at 15, which is close to my age now.**</mark>
>
> <mark style="color:$success;">IV.</mark> <mark style="color:$success;"></mark><mark style="color:$success;">**Most kids my age already have cell phones.**</mark>

This is a good start, but it’s still too bare. His parents won’t be convinced just by seeing the outline—they’ll want more explanation. So he expands his first point like this:

> <mark style="color:$success;">I.</mark> <mark style="color:$success;"></mark><mark style="color:$success;">**Cell phones are useful in emergencies or when I need to get in touch with you.**</mark>\
> &#x20; <mark style="color:$success;">A</mark>*<mark style="color:$success;">**.**</mark>**&#x20;**<mark style="color:purple;">**Phones are useful for emergencies.**</mark>*\
> &#x20;   <mark style="color:$success;">(1) If I get hurt riding my bike, I can call for help.</mark>\
> &#x20;   <mark style="color:$success;">(2) If mom or dad have an emergency, I can receive the message quickly and help.</mark>
>
> \
> &#x20; <mark style="color:$success;">B.</mark> *<mark style="color:purple;">**Phones are useful for getting in touch with you.**</mark>*\
> &#x20;   <mark style="color:$success;">(1) Last year, when I lost my house key, I had to walk 20 minutes to a friend’s house to call mom. A phone would have made it easier.</mark>

Here he's added "sub-points" to his various points, which help to elaborate and provide evidence for each of the points.&#x20;

By the time he’s finished expanding all four points, our freshman has an organized, layered argument:

* A **main issue/argument** (*I SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE A CELL PHONE*)
* Several **point headings** (I–IV) with reasons why his parents should agree
* **Sub-point headings** (A, B, 1, 2) that elaborate and give evidence

***

This same structure works in a legal brief. For example, if you are writing an argument that a police search of your client’s apartment violated the Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures, your brief might look like this:

{% hint style="success" %}
**Question Presented:** *Whether the police's warrantless search of  Defendant’s apartment violated the Fourth Amendment.*

I. **THE WARRANTLESS ENTRY INTO THE APARTMENT WAS UNCONSTITUTIONAL BECAUSE NO EXCEPTION TO THE WARRANT REQUIREMENT APPLIES.**\
&#x20; **A. The “exigent circumstances” exception does not apply because the police had time to obtain a warrant.**\
&#x20;   (1) In *Smith v. Ohio*, the court held that police must obtain a warrant when there is no immediate risk of harm or evidence destruction.\
&#x20;   (2) Like in *Smith*, the officers here had several hours to secure a warrant before entering.\
&#x20; **B. The “consent” exception does not apply because the landlord’s permission cannot substitute for the tenant’s consent.**

II. **EVEN IF THE ENTRY WERE LAWFUL, THE SCOPE OF THE SEARCH EXCEEDED CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS.**\
&#x20; **A. Police opened containers clearly outside the scope of the warrant exception.**\
&#x20; **B. Courts have repeatedly held that officers must limit their search to the areas justified by the exception invoked.**
{% endhint %}

Just as with the cell phone example, the structure moves from the **big picture** (the search violated the Fourth Amendment) to **reasons/points** (no exception applies; search was too broad) to **sub-points** (specific facts, case law, and applications).

***

👉 **Key Takeaway:** When organizing the argument section, think like the freshman arguing for a cell phone. Start with your main claim, lay out clear reasons, and then back up each reason with smaller points, facts, and authority. The structure should feel logical and layered, so that by the time the reader reaches the bottom of the “inverted triangle,” the conclusion seems inevitable.