5.1.1 STATE YOUR ISSUE AS ACONCLUSION
In the first “conclusion” element of the formula, the writer articulates the specific issue that is being addressed, or articulates the problem (or part or subpart of the problem) that is being “solved” in this section of the document.
The writer could articulate an issue from Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), for example, by stating affirmatively what the issue is:Under the intermediate scrutiny test, the first issue that must be decided is whether 8 U.S.C. §1409(a) is “substantially related” to the achievement of the government’s objective.
Although this method effectively tells the court the issue (and is preferable to neglecting to articulate the issue at all), it is not the best choice in a brief to a court because it is not argumentative. Generally, in persuasive writing, you should make your arguments as if they are the only reasonable resolution to the issues before the court. Therefore, it is often best to state your issues as conclusions:
8 U.S.C. §1409(a) is not “substantially related” to the achievement of the government’s objective because it is unconstitutionally overinclusive.
If your issue is more complicated, the conclusion may be longer than just a simple sentence. You may need to provide legal or factual context to help the reader to understand how the conclusion fits into your argument. In Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83 (1998), for example, the Court was asked to determine whether an officer violated the Fourth Amendment when he observed criminal activity through the window of a basement apartment. In the example below, the writer provides factual context before using a conclusory statement to articulate the issue:
Because Thielen was located outside the curtilage of the apartment, he was free to observe any scene in plain view. Respondents’ activities within the apartment were in plain view from Thielen’s lawful vantage point.
Thus, Thielen’s observation violated no reasonable expectation of privacy and did not constitute a Fourth Amendment search.By stating your issue as a conclusion, you begin to focus your reader not only on the issue that you will be addressing in that section of the argument, but also on the result that your analysis of the issue will reveal.
Will My Writing Be Boring If I Use the Same Formula in Each Section?
The CREAC formula does not provide one rubric that governs the whole argument section. CREAC provides a rubric that can be used over and over again, any time a writer has some point to explain or prove. The argument section itself will be organized according to the unique issues and sub-issues that the case presents. CREAC can be used, however, as a formula for your analysis of each significant issue and sub-issue within that argument. Some writers worry that their writing will be boring or overpredictable if they follow a formula like CREAC in each section of a document. This worry is unfounded for a couple of reasons.
First, CREAC does not tell you what to say. Instead, it recommends a particular organization for the information that readers traditionally need when analyzing legal issues. Most legal readers want to know the
rule first, then understand the rule’s meaning, and then see how it applies to the facts. Most judges want a simple organization; they don’t want to have to struggle to find a rule that a writer “creatively” saved for the end of his or her analysis of a legal issue.
The second reason not to worry is related to the first. CREAC is only an organizational structure. With no extra effort on your part, each section of your argument will vary from the section before according to the substance of the argument itself and the particular demands of the issue. Every issue needs a rule, but sometimes the rule is a simple quote from a statute, while at other times it is a common law rule, and at other times it is a cluster of rules that end on the particular rule that governs the narrow legal issue that is the focus of that section of the document. Similarly, the explanation of the rule and application of the rule to the facts will also vary from issue to issue.
Even if CREAC is not the most perfect organization for the analysis of a particular legal issue or sub-issue, it will probably still be an effective organization. Thus, it is probably most practical for an attorney to assume a CREAC organization rather than to spend precious time trying to determine what is the “best” structure for analyzing a legal issue.
Whatever organizational method you use, the elements of CREAC provide a good checklist. In every section of the argument, the reader will always need to know the issue you’re addressing, the rule that governs the issue, what the rule means, how it applies in this case, and how that application connects to your argument.