Proposition 1
Proposition 2
P2.1
P2.2
P2.2.1
P2.2.2
P2.2.3
P2.2.4
P2.3
P2.4
P2.5
Proposition 3
Proposition 4
Figure 3.2 Hierarchical Argument
In short, to ensure that a written work is structured there is one simple rule. At
each level –
proposition, sub-proposition, sub-sub-proposition and so on –
each component must flow logically from the one before it and lead naturally
into the one that follows it. When a writer follows this procedure their work
will be structured right through.
Illustration
To illustrate overall structure, consider the following example, which involves
an article discussing the rise of legal positivism and its features.
First, the main points, which generally become major headings, could be these:
1.
Introduction
2.
Natural Law in Catholic Europe
3.
Crisis in Natural Law: English Reformation 1529-1543
4.
Origins of Positivism
5.
Formation of Positivism: Bentham and Austin
6.
Positivism Today: Kelsen and Hart
7.
Positivism Tomorrow: Any Takers?
8.
Conclusion
One scarcely needs to know that positivism supplanted natural law as the
dominant ideology in English law to appreciate the argument encapsulated in
these headings. They indicate that natural law was once dominant in Catholic
Europe, that it experienced a crisis in the Reformation, as a result positivism
started to emerge, that positivism was formulated by Bentham and Austin,
developed by Kelsen and Hart, but now has an uncertain future. In this
example the material is organised chronologically, but the logic is just as
applicable to other forms of organisation.
Second, consider how the writer could proceed under one of the headings:
 |
 |
 |