In the brief on page 90, if the headings under I were “A.  Party politics, B. Waste in contracts, C. No responsibility for expenditures,” neither the maker of the brief nor the critic of it could know with any certainty the course of the reasoning.  It is undoubtedly true that many lawyers and other men of affairs use only topic heads when they are planning an argument; but it is to be remembered that they are men who have been training their powers of thought in hard earnest, and their ability to work out and stick to a train of reasoning with so little written aid has not much bearing on what is the best practice for young men who are in the process of gaining this ability.  To make a full outline of the reasoning in a few arguments is the best way to get the sense for logical and coherent structure.

7.  Each heading should contain a single assertion only.

The reason for this rule is obvious:  if under each assertion you are going to set the reasons for that assertion, you will get into trouble if your assertion is double-headed, since what is a reason for one part of it may not be a reason for another.  If in the brief on page 90 heading I B should read, “Advantageous contracts cannot be made, and the responsibility for expenditures is scattered,” subheading I C 2, “Accounts are submitted to separate committees of the two boards in which no members have special responsibility,” would have nothing to do with the making of contracts, and subheading I B 1, “Contracts must be passed on by both aldermen and common councilmen and the mayor,” would have nothing to do with expenditures.

8.  In the body of the brief the assertions should be arranged as follows:  Each main heading should embody one of the main issues as stated in the Introduction; and each of the subordinate assertions should stand as a reason for the assertion to which it is subordinate.  The connective between an assertion and one subordinate to it will therefore be for, since, or because, or the like, not hence or therefore, or the like.

A brief thus arranged lays out the reasoning in a complete and easily scrutinized form.  Thus in the brief on page 90 for the assertion in the first main issue, “The admitted inefficiency, of the city government at present is due to the system of government,” three chief reasons are given:  A.  “Partisan politics determine nominations to office,” B.  “Advantageous contracts cannot be made,” and C.  “The responsibility for expenditures is scattered.”  Then for each of these secondary assertions reasons in support are adduced; thus for B.  “Advantageous contracts cannot be made,” the reasons are I.  “Contracts must be passed on separately by aldermen, common councilmen, and the mayor,” and 2.  “Bargains are made between the aldermen representing different wards.”  In this case final references are given for each of these subordinate assertions, so that we get down to the ultimate foundation of verifiable fact on which the argument is to be built up.