I agree with Martin argument that using “whether” is not the best way to an issue statement. This is because even grammatically, that word is quite challenging to derive the required factual data into understandable and readable formation. This leaves the audience confined to a single sentence hence places a challenge real comprehension of the issue. This could consequently draw doubts to the minds of the readers.
However, in the issue of the deep formation, I believe that deep issue can work out effectively to serve as an argument summary. The only difference is that the deep issue should conclude with a question while the summary argument should end with declarative sentence. Contrary to Martin, if the deep issues are applied in this manner the formation can be a better way to go. If the deep statement formulation is delivered as earlier as possible, it can help the reader to arrange all the details that pursues in a context. In most cases, the summary of the argument may delay in delivering such essentials for the first time.
I think that the contribution from Martin Stern to Bryan Garner argument is interesting, but I contradict with him that short and concise sentence are always appreciated by the court as issue statement. This light issue statement would not be in a position to deliver the entire necessary essentials. The court might be busy, but as part of their job, they should consider the deep issue statement as significant and convincing. Therefore, in my point of view using concrete question in court healing could be better way to derive case points and make a clear judgment.
References
Richard K Neumann, (2009). Legal Reasoning and Legal Writing: Structure, Strategy, and Style. Austin: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business ; New York, NY : Aspen Publishers
Amanda Martinsek, (2009). Legal writing: how to write legal briefs, memos, and other legal documents in a clear and concise style. New York: Kaplan Pub.
