how to write lawyer essay

• PRO Courses Guides New Tech Help Pro Expert Videos About wikiHow Pro Upgrade Sign In
• EDIT Edit this Article
• EXPLORE Tech Help Pro About Us Random Article Quizzes Request a New Article Community Dashboard This Or That Game Popular Categories Arts and Entertainment Artwork Books Movies Computers and Electronics Computers Phone Skills Technology Hacks Health Men's Health Mental Health Women's Health Relationships Dating Love Relationship Issues Hobbies and Crafts Crafts Drawing Games Education & Communication Communication Skills Personal Development Studying Personal Care and Style Fashion Hair Care Personal Hygiene Youth Personal Care School Stuff Dating All Categories Arts and Entertainment Finance and Business Home and Garden Relationship Quizzes Cars & Other Vehicles Food and Entertaining Personal Care and Style Sports and Fitness Computers and Electronics Health Pets and Animals Travel Education & Communication Hobbies and Crafts Philosophy and Religion Work World Family Life Holidays and Traditions Relationships Youth
• Browse Articles
• Learn Something New
• Quizzes Hot
• This Or That Game New
• Train Your Brain
• Explore More
• Support wikiHow
• About wikiHow
• Log in / Sign up
• Education and Communications
• College University and Postgraduate
• Academic Writing

How to Write a Law Essay

Last Updated: August 11, 2023

This article was co-authored by Clinton M. Sandvick, JD, PhD . Clinton M. Sandvick worked as a civil litigator in California for over 7 years. He received his JD from the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1998 and his PhD in American History from the University of Oregon in 2013. This article has been viewed 240,287 times.

In a college legal studies course, and in some law school courses, you may be required to write a research paper addressing a legal topic. These essays can be tricky, because the law is constantly evolving. To secure a top grade, your essay must be well-researched and coherently argued. With proper planning and research, you can write a stellar legal essay. [Note: this article does not address how to write law school essay exams or bar exam questions, which require different techniques and strategies.]

Choosing an Essay Topic

• A narrow essay prompt might read, "Discuss the evolution and impact of the exclusionary rule of evidence in the United States." A broad prompt might read, "Discuss how a civil rights movement led to changes in federal and/or state law."
• If you are invited to choose your own topic, your professor may require you to submit a written proposal or outline to ensure that your chosen topic complies with the prompt. If you are not sure if your topic is within the parameters of the prompt, propose your topic to your professor after class or during his or her office hours.

• Hopefully, your course readings, lectures, and class discussions will have given you enough background knowledge to select a topic. If not, review your class notes and browse online for additional background information.
• It is not uncommon to change your topic after doing some research. You may end up narrowing the questions your essay will answer, or changing your topic completely.

• If you can, try to focus on an are of the law that affects you. For example, if your family is involved in agriculture, you may be interested in writing about water use regulations .

Researching Your Topic

• If you are prohibited from citing internet resources, you can still use online research to guide you to physical primary and secondary sources in your local library or bookstore.

• Look at footnotes, citations, and indexes in tertiary sources. These are great for finding books, articles, and legal cases that are relevant to your topic. Also take note of the names of authors, who may have written multiple works on your topic.

• Also find search engines for related fields, such as history or political science. Ask your librarian to recommend specialized search engines tailored to other disciplines that may have contributed to your topic.

• Never cut and paste from the web into your notes or essay. This often leads to inadvertent plagiarism because students forget what is a quotation and what is paraphrasing. When gathering sources, paraphrase or add quotation marks in your outline.
• Plagiarism is a serious offense. If you ultimately hope to be a lawyer, an accusation of plagiarism could prevent you from passing the character and fitness review.

Drafting the Essay

• An effective introduction takes the reader out of his world and into the world of your essay. [2] X Trustworthy Source University of North Carolina Writing Center UNC's on-campus and online instructional service that provides assistance to students, faculty, and others during the writing process Go to source Explain why the subject is important and briefly summarizes the rest of your argument. After reading your introduction, your reader should know what you are going to discuss and in what order you will be discussing it.
• Be prepared to revise your introduction later. Summarizing your essay will be easier after you have written it, especially if you deviate from your outline.

• State each argument of your essay as a statement that, if true, would support your thesis statement.
• Provide supporting information drawn from primary and secondary sources that support your argument. Remember to cite your sources.
• Provide your own original analysis, explaining to the reader that based on the primary and secondary sources you have presented, the reader should be persuaded by your argument.

Formatting Your Essay

Proofreading the Essay

• Open up a Word document. On the Quick Access Toolbar at the top, click on the down arrow. The words “Customize Quick Access Toolbar” will appear when you hover over the arrow for two seconds.
• Click on the arrow. Then click on “More Commands.”
• In the “Choose commands from” drop-down box, choose “All commands.”
• Scroll down to find “Speak.” Highlight this and then click “add.” Then click “okay.” Now the Speak function should appear on your Quick Access Toolbar.
• Highlight the text you want read back to you, and then click on the Speak icon. The text will be read back to you.

• Do not rely on a spell checker exclusively, as it will not catch typos like "statute" versus "statue."

Revising the Essay

• You can share the essay with someone outside of class, but a classmate more likely has the requisite knowledge to understand the subject matter of the essay.

Expert Q&A

You might also like.

• ↑ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/engagement/2/2/53/
• ↑ http://writingcenter.unc.edu/handouts/introductions/
• ↑ https://www.legalbluebook.com/
• ↑ https://support.office.com/en-ca/article/Using-the-Speak-text-to-speech-feature-459e7704-a76d-4fe2-ab48-189d6b83333c

About This Article

To write a law essay, start by writing a thesis statement on your chosen topic. Phrase your thesis statement as an argument, using words like “because” or “therefore” to state your point. Write an outline of the arguments you will use to support your thesis statement, then use that outline to build the body of your paper. Include any counter-arguments, but use your evidence to convince the reader why your point of view is valid, and the counter-arguments are not. Be sure to cite all of your sources in the format preferred by your professor. For tips from our reviewer on finding the best sources for your topic, keep reading! Did this summary help you? Yes No

• Send fan mail to authors

Did this article help you?

Featured Articles

Trending Articles

Watch Articles

• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Do Not Sell or Share My Info
• Not Selling Info

wikiHow Tech Help Pro:

Develop the tech skills you need for work and life

Username or email  *

Password  *

Forgotten password?

[email protected]

+44 (0)20 8834 4579

Legal Writing: Start Writing Like a Lawyer!

If you’re currently studying to be a lawyer, chances are that you’ll be entering the legal world at some point in the next ten years. It seems like a while off, but it might arrive quicker than you think. Are you ready?

In this article, we’ll take you through five ways to improve your legal writing: in other words, writing for business, and not for an academic essay. Get to know the tips, try them out in your applications and assessment days – and you’ll be ready to hit the ground running when your legal career kicks off.

1. Get to the Point

First up, make your point and make it clearly, quickly and well. This might, in fact, be the biggest change from academic writing to legal writing. In an essay, it might work to start with a broad outline of the background, then move to the context, and then (a good few pages later) begin to outline your views. In legal writing, however, you want to make it as easy as possible for your recipient to grasp the point.

The simplest way of doing this is to actually dedicate some time to working out what you’re trying to say. Sounds obvious, but be honest – we’ve all started writing a piece of text without really knowing what we’re trying to do with it.

If it helps, you could try explaining the concept to yourself first (see tip five, also): it often takes analysis like this to really get to the heart of your understanding. Once you’ve done this (and yes, it’s difficult work, but worth it), you’ll be ready to start crafting your text, with the main point going first and the background/context following afterwards.

2. Have a View, or an Opinion

Have you ever read a piece of writing where you’re not really sure what the author thinks? Maybe they argue one way, and then another, and perhaps end up somewhere in this middle. This is not what you’re going for in legal writing. Instead, think about the answer to the question you’re solving, or the point you’re making.

What’s your opinion about it? What recommendations do you have for the next steps? What should the recipient of your writing be thinking, or considering, or taking action on? Bonus points if you can add in a couple of explicit recommendations for what you think should happen next.

3. Give Advice in a Commercial Context

Commercial awareness, in its essence, is this: being aware of the commercial context. Sounds obvious, but it’s actually one of the most forgotten elements when it comes to legal writing for business. Too often, lawyers think of themselves as specialist advisers, giving guidance on the letter of the law. But the most effective legal advice is tailored to the client’s needs, goals and objectives (in other words, advice tailored to the commercial context).

So, how to integrate your legal advice and your commercial understanding? A good strategy to adopt is to spend time investigating the client’s business context. Think about what they actually want, what they’re asking for, and only then dive into the relevant law. Once you understand the legal foundation, you’ll then be in a good position to explain it with an emphasis on how it applies to that particular client, in that particular case. Make sure you’re not wasting space on material that is neither relevant nor important – get to the point and deliver the answer.

4. Use Formatting Techniques

Until now, perhaps you’ve avoided bullet points, or numbered lists, or subheadings. Maybe they seemed too simplistic for your academic writing. Well, this is the time to make friends with formatting. You want your legal writing to be easy to read, easy to understand and easy to put into action, even if it deals with an incredibly complex issue.

One way of doing this is to break up the text: think about how the reader would best be able to comprehend the information, and draft accordingly. Whenever you find good examples of other people doing this, make a note, and try it out for yourself.

5. Know Your Own Writing

Here’s a quick test for you: can you explain your point, in as few sentences as possible, and still capture the essence of what you’re trying to say? It’s often when we try and explain a concept to someone else that we realise we haven’t really understood it ourselves. A fellow student might be a willing participant if you want someone to practice on – or just try explaining it to yourself! If you find that you hesitate, revisit your analysis.

Sounds counterintuitive, but it’s true – the more you understand a topic deeply, the less you’ll need to play around with jargon, long sentences and complicated descriptions. It takes a lot of effort to write with clarity, grace and style – but you’ll be recognised and rewarded for it.

Words: Eloise Skinner

Eloise Skinner is a solicitor at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. Eloise started her journey in law at the University of Cambridge, graduating with a triple first-class degree. Following her studies, Eloise developed an interest in professional development, leading her to become a frequent contributor on careers-related topics for organisations such as The Lawyer , Lex 100 and the Law Society . Her new book, Junior Lawyers’ Handbook, can be purchased here .

• Earn Money with Law Essays
• LNAT Essay: Section B

Free Guides

Our free guides cover everything from deciding on law to studying and practising law abroad. Search through our vast directory.

Upcoming Events

Explore our events for aspiring lawyers. Sponsored by top institutions, they offer fantastic insights into the legal profession.

Join Our Newsletter

Join our mailing list for weekly updates and advice on how to get into law.

Law Quizzes

Try our selection of quizzes for aspiring lawyers for a fun way to gain insight into the legal profession!

PREVIOUS ARTICLE

Top 6 Jobs for Barristers Without Pupillages

NEXT ARTICLE

Life as a Trainee at Curzon Green

You may also like.

Loading More Content

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

'Don't just vomit on the page': how to write a legal essay

Law lecturer Steven Vaughan explains why the best essays take discipline, editing, and teamwork

W hen Steven Vaughan, a senior law lecturer at University College London, asked students to mark a previous fresher’s work , their feedback was brutal. It just about scraped a 2:2. The students were therefore shocked to discover this “really bad essay” was written by Vaughan himself during his time as an Oxford undergrad. The reassuring point Vaughan was trying to make, of course, is that students shouldn’t worry if they are not turning in perfect essays from day one. Like any skill, essay writing requires practice. Here, Vaughan offers his advice:

MJ: How do law essays differ from other subjects?

SV: All essays are about communicating a message to a particular sort of audience, so we are looking for structure, logic, and narrative. It’s the law that makes the difference, though. New students often haven’t studied law before and are not aware of its nuance. Writing a law essay is about digging deep to uncover uncertainty and complexity within the law, and to use this to argue a position.

Students always ask, ‘What should our essays look like?’ I tell them they should be writing like the academic articles we give them to read. Obviously that’s a difficult ask on day one, but those should be a guide.

What are the most common mistakes students make when writing law essays?

There are three common mistakes. The first is students not answering the question we set. This happens for lots of different reasons – either because students are stressed and they misread it, or they don’t understand it. But whatever you do, don’t just vomit on the page. You need to think about what exactly we are asking.

Secondly, don’t write your essay like a murder mystery. I often find I don’t know where an essay is going or what the conclusion is going to be until I get to the very end. The most common thing I write in capital letters is, ‘What’s your argument? What are you saying?’

The third common mistake is an argument lacking authority. Students will often put forward propositions that are intelligent and well reasoned but don’t connect back to the law. What’s the bit of statute, case law or legal academic that you are using to evidence the claim that you are making?

What’s the best way to start a law essay?

Often introductions are long and rambling. If you can set the right tone at the beginning, it makes all the difference. I tell my students to do three things in their introductions. First, give it a context: frame the issue for the reader and for the question. Then set out your argument. And then do some signposting: tell me what is going to happen over the next three paragraphs or the next three pages.

What’s the best way to approach research?

Students don’t ask us enough for guidance on how to direct their reading. The reading list is almost always split into two parts – the required reading section and the further reading section. The required reading is stuff we just expect you to know, it’s a given. Additional reading is for when you have time, these are things you should explore.

Law students always complain about how much work they have to do. But what they don’t do is form study groups to help each other prep. One of my first-year messages is that law isn’t The Hunger Games. There is no reason why you can’t all do well. So why don’t you share the reading between you?

What really impresses me is when students divvy up the additional reading, when students create Facebook or WhatsApp groups and share knowledge among themselves.

How do you best manage your time?

My advice is always do as I say, not as I did. I was a student who was awake all night, cramming for exams and finishing my essay at 6am for a tutorial at 9am. The better advice is to try and treat your law degree like a job. So think about working 8-4 or 9-5. You shouldn’t be working in the early hours of the morning or at the weekend. That requires quite a bit of discipline. Have a timetable that you stick to.

When you think you have finished a piece, physically walk away from it, get some fresh air, go to the gym – whatever it is you do. It’s only when you come back to it later that you will notice all the imperfections and mistakes.

You have also got to build in time for getting feedback from other people, whether it’s friends, family or other law students. Give it to someone who is going to be brutally honest.

• Studying law
• Guardian Students
• Higher education
• Universities

Most viewed

• IMC Library
• Library Guides

Legal Method, Research and Writing

• Academic Writing in Law
• Legal Research Basics
• Law Database Guides
• Referencing in Law
• Other Research Resources for Law

Email Ettiquette

THE BASIC RULES

• Don't use an unprofessional email address
• Start with a new e-mail
• Include an appropriate subject heading
• Write a salutation
• Write well!  
• Provide context and background information
• Write a clear and concise message
• Sign your name
• Proofread the e-mail
• Allow adequate time for a reply
• Writing Professional Emails More detailed advice about how to write emails to academic staff

Academic Writing and Research in Law

• UTS Guide to Writing in Law A highly recommended helpful and comprehensive guide to writing law papers.
• Monash University Guide to Writing in Law Law writing guide with helpful Q&A's and tips for planning out case argumentation.
• University of Queensland Legal Research Essentials Introduction to Legal Research by The University of Queensland, Australia

Other Help:

• Quoting, Paraphrasing, Summarising The basic differences in how to writes quotes, how to write paraphrases, and how to write summaries of the sources you find.

Basic Rules

Academic and professional legal writing requires you to develop an argument and demonstrate relationships between the ideas you are expressing. 

Therefore, the ability to express yourself clearly and accurately is important.  Here you will find information to help you improve your writing for any purpose in your law degree.

Academic writing in law is:

Academic writing in law does not:   

Steps to Writing a Law Essay

Throughout your law degree, you will be expected to write a range of different texts, including research essays, responses to problem questions, and case notes.

Not matter the type of text you are asked to produce for an assignment, make sure you follow these steps:

• Plan :  read the questions carefully and think about how you will answer it
• Research :  read, read and read! Make use of everything available to you - don't forget the library!
• Make thorough notes : include all important (and relevant) details and quotes and take note of the source. Make sure you organise your notes so as to make the writing task easier
• Write the first draft :  before you start writing your first draft, refer back to your initial plan and make any necessary changes now you have done your research and gathered your notes. 
• Review and edit :  remember to proofread your work!

The IRAC Method

IRAC is an acronym that stands for: Issue, Rule, Application, and Conclusion. It functions as a methodology for legal analysis and is used as a framework for organising your answer to an essay question in law school.

[ Open All | Close All ]

In legal writing, issues are the core of the essay.

This part of the essay should:

• Identify and state the issue
• Name those involved (plaintiff and defendant) and briefly describe their individual issues
• Work out what body of law may govern the resolution of the issue (e.g. Contract Law)

The rule describes which law applies to the issue. The rule should be stated as a general principle, and not a conclusion to the particular case being briefed.

• Outline the legal principles that will be used to address to the issue
• Source legal principles from cases and legislation

The application is the most important and longest part of your answer. It involves applying the Rule to the facts of the issue and demonstrating how those facts do or do not meet the requirements laid down by the rules. Discuss both sides of the case when possible.

• Explain why the plaintiff's claims are or are not justified
• Identify how the law will be used by the plaintiff and defendant to argue their case
• Use relevant cases and legal principles to support your writing
• Do not try to strengthen your argument by leaving out elements or facts that will hurt it

As with all essays, the conclusion is a statement that identifies your answer to the issue.

• Identify what the result of your argument ir, or what it should be
• State who is liable for what and to what extent
• Consider how the plaintiff and defendant could have acted to avoid this legal issue

Useful Links:

• UWA IRAC Guide This guide from the University of Western Australia offers examples of how the IRAC method can be applied to different cases.
• Law School Survival: The IRAC Method A useful site that presents a detailed outline of the IRAC method as well as skeleton outlines.

Law Writing Media

Additional Resource

Featured Resource

Further Support

Related Guides

Proofreading Tool

• Last Updated: Jan 17, 2024 3:38 PM
• URL: https://top-au.libguides.com/legal-method-research-and-writing

Copyright © 2019 Australian National Institute of Management and Commerce (IMC) Registered Higher Education Provider TEQSA PRV12059 | CRICOS 02491D Top Education Group Ltd ACN 098 139 176 trading as Australian National Institute of Management and Commerce (IMC) All content is subject to change.

What are your chances of acceptance?

Calculate for all schools, your chance of acceptance.

Your chancing factors

Extracurriculars.

College Application Essay Tips for Aspiring Lawyers

This article was written based on the information and opinions presented by Alexander Oddo in a CollegeVine livestream. You can watch the full livestream for more info.

What’s Covered:

Describe your reasons why, career goals, the personal statement.

Your aspirations are an important component of what makes you who you are, and if you aspire to become a lawyer, you should share this information with any college or university that you apply to. In the college application process, essays are the best opportunity for you to discuss your passion for the law and your interest in becoming a lawyer. You may incorporate your legal aspirations into your personal statement or they may form the backbone of your supplemental essays where you respond to questions about why you are interested in a particular school, program, or major.

Generally speaking, a smart way to approach your essays is to introduce your interests and connect them to specific personal stories and goals. As a person who aspires to be a lawyer, you want to introduce your interests that relate to the law and describe what attracts you to the legal field. What is it about studying the law and becoming a lawyer that you find most compelling? Why does this path feel meaningful and necessary to you? Draw on specific experiences in your life and lessons you have learned to formulate your rationale for pursuing this career path. 

When you explain why you aspire to be a lawyer, be as specific as possible. “ Lawyers help people. The legal profession is lucrative.” These reasons are too simplistic and generic to provide any useful insight for an admissions officer to understand who you are. If you want to become a lawyer, you should explain your motivation to pursue this career path in terms of: 

• Why you want to help others and who you want to help, such as immigrants or victims of domestic violence
• What areas of the law interest you, such as tax law, family law, or corporate law
• What it is about studying and practicing law that appeals to you intellectually, such as that you have an analytical mind and enjoy solving complex problems
• What disciplinary perspectives you find interesting in relation to the law, such as history, philosophy, political science, public policy, or criminology 
• What experiences you have had and people you have met that have inspired you to pursue a legal career. Any experiences you cite should extend beyond your favorite episode of “Law and Order” or “How to Get Away with Murder.” Maybe a movie or TV show about the law initially sparked your interest, but then you developed this interest into an enduring passion by volunteering at your local courthouse, joining your high school’s mock trial team, or becoming certified as a paralegal. 

After you have thoroughly explained why you are interested in becoming a lawyer, you should look to the future and discuss your career goals. Identify a specific area of the law that you want to practice, and ground this in the various reasons why you want to become a lawyer. It is completely fine if you are not entirely sure what area of law you want to practice. Regardless, the winning strategy is to pick a specific area of law that you want to pursue and cite this consistently throughout your college applications. It will allow you to construct an application that is specific, developed, and memorable rather than overly general, unfocused, and potentially forgettable.

Ultimately, colleges and admissions officers will not hold you accountable for matching the goals and plans you outline in your essays. You are free to start college and decide that you don’t want to pursue a legal career at all. You should know before you apply to and attend law school whether you want to practice law, but undergraduate institutions recognize that you are young and still trying to explore your interests and define your goals. If you do pivot, admissions officers will rest assured because they know you have been through the process of creating a goal and that you can go through this process in any field you choose. 

If you are applying to a school that does not have any supplemental essays as part of its application, then you should discuss your legal aspirations in your Common Application personal statement. Your personal statement is the place in your application where you share your personal story, and you should tell this story in such a way that you weave your past, present, and future together. When you discuss your future, include some information about your interest in becoming a lawyer, drawing connections between this goal and your past experiences and present endeavors that inform and relate to your aspirations.

For more information, review this comprehensive guide on How to Write the Common Application Essays for the 2022-2023 application cycle.

How to write better ChatGPT prompts in 5 steps

ChatGPT is the generative artificial intelligence (AI) tool that's taken the world by storm. While there's always the possibility it will simply make stuff up , there's a lot you can do when crafting prompts to ensure the best possible outcome. That's what we'll be exploring in this how-to.

In this article, we'll show you how to write prompts that encourage the large language model (LLM) that powers  ChatGPT to provide the best possible answers. 

Also: Have 10 hours? IBM will train you in AI fundamentals - for free

Writing effective prompts, known as prompt engineering, has even become its own highly-paid discipline . Who knows? These tips could help you build the skills to become one of those highly paid prompt engineers. Apparently, these gigs can pay from $175,000 to $335,000 per year.  

How to write effective ChatGPT prompts

1. talk to the ai like you would a person.

One of the more interesting things I had to get used to when working with ChatGPT is that you don't program it, you talk to it. As a formally trained programmer, I've had to leave a lot of habits by the wayside when engaging with AI. Talking to it (and with it) requires a mindset shift.

When I say talk to it like a person, I mean talk to it like you would a co-worker or team member. If that's hard to do, give it a name. Alexa is taken, so maybe think of it as "Bob". This naming helps because when you talk to Bob, you might include conversational details, little anecdotes that give your story texture.

Also:   How to use ChatGPT to write code

When talking to a person, it would be natural for them to miss your point initially and require clarification, or veer away from the topic at hand and need to be wrangled back. You might need to fill in the backstory for them, or restate complex questions based on the answers they give you. 

This is called interactive prompting. Don't be afraid to ask multi-step questions: ask, get a response, and based on that response, ask another question. I've done this myself, sometimes 10 or 20 times in a row, and gotten very powerful results. Think of this as having a conversation with ChatGPT.

2. Set the stage and provide context

Writing a ChatGPT prompt is more than just asking a one-sentence question. It often involves providing relevant background information to set the context of the query.

Let's say that you want to prepare for a marathon (for the record, I do not run, dance, or jump -- this is merely an example). You could ask ChatGPT:

How can I prepare for a marathon?

However, you'll get a far more nuanced answer if you add that you're training for your first marathon. Try this instead: 

I am a beginner runner and have never run a marathon before, but I want to complete one in six months. How can I prepare for a marathon?

By giving the AI more information, you're helping it return a more focused answer. Even with ChatGPT's help, there's no way I'm going to run a marathon (unless I'm doing it with a V-Twin motor under my seat). Here are two more examples of questions that provide context:

I am planning to travel to Spain in a few months and would like to learn some basic Spanish to help me communicate with local residents. I am looking for online resources that are suitable for beginners and provide a structured and comprehensive approach to learning the language. Can you recommend some online resources for learning Spanish as a beginner?

In this case, rather than just asking about learning resources, the context helps focus the AI on learning how to communicate on the ground with local residents. Here's another example: 

I am a business owner interested in exploring how blockchain technology can be used to improve supply chain efficiency and transparency. I am looking for a clear and concise explanation of the technology and examples of how it has been used in the context of supply chain management. Can you explain the concept of blockchain technology and its potential applications in supply chain management?

In this example, rather than just asking for information on blockchain and how it works, the focus is specifically on blockchain for supply chain efficiency and how it might be used in a real-world scenario. 

Also:  How to use Image Creator from Microsoft Designer (formerly Bing Image Creator) Lastly, let's get into how to construct a detailed prompt. 

One note: I limit the answer to 500 words because ChatGPT seems to break when asked to produce somewhere between 500 and 700 words, leaving stories mid-sentence and not resuming properly when asked to continue. I hope future versions provide longer answers, because premises like this can generate fun story beginnings: 

Write a short story for me, no more than 500 words. The story takes place in 2339, in Boston. The entire story takes place inside a Victorian-style bookstore that wouldn't be out of place in Diagon Alley. Inside the store are the following characters, all human: The proprietor: make this person interesting and a bit unusual, give them a name and at least one skill or characteristic that influences their backstory and possibly influences the entire short story. The helper: this is a clerk in the store. His name is Todd. The customer and his friend: Two customers came into the store together, Jackson and Ophelia. Jackson is dressed as if he's going to a Steampunk convention, while Ophelia is clearly coming home from her day working in a professional office. Another customer is Evangeline, a regular customer in the store, in her mid-40s. Yet another customer is Archibald, a man who could be anywhere from 40 to 70 years old. He has a mysterious air about himself and seems both somewhat grandiose and secretive. There is something about Archibald that makes the others uncomfortable. A typical concept in retail sales is that there's always more inventory "in the back," where there's a storeroom for additional goods that might not be shown on the shelves where customers browse. The premise of this story is that there is something very unusual about this store's "in the back." Put it all together and tell something compelling and fun.

You can see how the detail provides more for the AI to work with. First, feed "Write me a story about a bookstore" into ChatGPT and see what it gives you. Then feed in the above prompt and you'll see the difference.

3. Tell the AI to assume an identity or profession

One of ChatGPT's coolest features is that it can write from the point of view of a specific person or profession. In a previous article, I showed how you can make ChatGPT write like a pirate or Shakespeare , but you can also have it write like a teacher, a marketing executive, a fiction writer -- anyone you want. 

Also: How ChatGPT can rewrite and improve your existing code  

For example, I can ask ChatGPT to describe the Amazon Echo smart home device, but to do so from the point of view of a product manager, a caregiver, and a journalist in three separate prompts: 

From the point of view of its product manager, describe the Amazon Echo Alexa device. From the point of view of an adult child caring for an elderly parent, describe the Amazon Echo Alexa device. From the point of view of a journalist, describe the Amazon Echo Alexa device.

Try dropping these three prompts into ChatGPT to see its complete response. 

I've pulled a few lines from ChatGPT's responses, so you can see how it interprets different perspectives.  From the product manager identity:  I can confidently say that this is one of the most innovative and revolutionary products in the smart home industry.

From the caregiver identity:  The device's ability to set reminders and alarms can be particularly helpful for elderly individuals who may have trouble remembering to take their medication or attend appointments.

Also:   5 ways to explore the use of generative AI at work

And from the journalist identity:  From a journalistic perspective, the Echo has made headlines due to privacy concerns surrounding the collection and storage of user data.

You can see how different identities allow the AI to provide different perspectives as part of its response. To expand this, you can let the AI do a thought experiment. Let's look at some of the issues that went into the creation of something like Alexa:

The year is 2012. Siri has been out for the iPhone for about a year, but nothing like an Alexa smart home device has been released. The scene is an Amazon board meeting where the Echo smart assistant based on Alexa has just been proposed.  Provide the arguments, pro and con, that board members at that meeting would have been likely to discuss as part of their process of deciding whether or not to approve spending to invest in developing the device.  Feel free to also include participation by engineering design experts and product champions, if that provides more comprehensive perspective.

It's also good to know that making minor changes to your prompts can significantly change ChatGPT's response. For example, when I changed the phrase, "Provide the arguments, pro and con, that..." to "Provide the pro and con arguments as dialogue, that...," ChatGPT rewrote its answer, switching from a list of enumerated pros and cons to an actual dialogue between participants.

4. Keep ChatGPT on track

As mentioned above, ChatGPT has a tendency to go off the rails, lose track of the discussion, or completely fabricate answers. 

There are a few techniques you can use to help keep it on track and honest.

One of my favorite things to do is ask ChatGPT to justify its responses. I'll use phrases like "Why do you think that?" or "What evidence supports your answer?" Often, the AI will simply apologize for making stuff up and come back with a new answer. Other times, it might give you some useful information about its reasoning path. In any case, don't forget to apply the tips I provide for having ChatGPT cite sources .

Also:  My two favorite ChatGPT Plus features and the remarkable things I can do with them

If you have a fairly long conversation with ChatGPT, you'll start to notice that the AI loses the thread. Not that that's unique to AIs -- even in extended conversations with humans, someone is bound to get lost. That said, you can gently guide the AI back on track by reminding it what the topic is, as well as what you're trying to explore.

5. Don't be afraid to play and experiment

One of the best ways to up your skill at this craft is to play around with what the chatbot can do.

Try feeding ChatGPT a variety of interesting prompts to see what it will do with them. Then change them up and see what happens. Here are five to get you started:

• Imagine you are a raindrop falling from the sky during a thunderstorm. Describe your journey from the moment you form in the cloud to the moment you hit the ground. What do you see, feel, and experience?
• You are a toy that has been left behind in an attic for decades. Narrate your feelings, memories of playtimes past, and your hopes of being rediscovered.
• Write the final diary entry of a time traveler who has decided to settle down in a specific era, explaining why they chose that time and what they've learned from their travels.
• Imagine a dialogue between two unlikely objects, like a teacup and a wristwatch, discussing the daily routines and challenges they face.
• Describe a day in an ant colony from the perspective of an ant. Dive deep into the politics, challenges, and social structures of the ant world.

Pay attention not only to what the AI generates, but how it generates what it does, what mistakes it makes, and where it seems to run into limits. All of that detail will help you expand your prompting horizons.

More prompt-writing tips 

• Feel free to re-ask the question. ChatGPT will often change its answer with each ask.
• Make small changes to your prompts to guide it into giving you a better answer.
• ChatGPT will retain its awareness of previous conversations as long as the current page is open. If you leave that page, it will lose awareness. To be clear, ChatGPT will also sometimes lose the thread of the conversation without reason, so be aware you may need to start over from time to time.
• Similarly, opening a new page will start the discussion with fresh responses.
• Be sure to specify the length of the response you want. Answers over about 500 words sometimes break down. 
• You can correct and clarify prompts based on how the AI answered previously. If it's misinterpreting you, you may be able to just tell it what it missed and continue.
• Rephrase questions if ChatGPT doesn't want to answer what you're asking. Use personas to elicit answers that it might not otherwise want to give.
• If you want sources cited , tell it to support or justify its answers.
• ChatGPT custom instructions are now available to free users. You can  give ChatGPT a set of prompts that are always available , so you don't have to retype them.
• Keep experimenting.
• Consider getting the ChatGPT Plus subscription . You can then use your own data for powerful analytics . You can also pull data from the Web . 
• Try asking the same question of Gemini  (formerly Bard) or Copilot (formerly Bing Chat). Both will interpret your prompts differently and answer differently. This is effectively getting a second opinion on your prompt, and can give you alternate perspectives.
• Ask for examples. If you want to see how well ChatGPT understands what you're asking for, ask it "Can you give me three examples of how that works?" or similar questions.
• Ask it to repeat parts of your original requests back to you. For example, if you feed it an article to analyze, you can tell it something like, "Just to be sure you understand, please echo back the first three headlines," or "I want to be sure you understand what I mean, so summarize the main conflict discussed in this article." 
• Sometimes ChatGPT just fails. Keep trying, but also be willing to give up and move on to other tools. It's not perfect...yet.

What type of prompts work best with ChatGPT? 

Part of what makes ChatGPT so compelling is you can ask it almost anything. That said, keep in mind that it's designed to provide written answers. If you want a list of websites, you're better off talking to Google. 

Also:  How to use DALL-E 3 in ChatGPT

If you want some form of computation, talk to Wolfram Alpha . Give ChatGPT open-ended prompts, encourage creativity, and don't be afraid to share personal experiences or emotions. Plus, keep in mind that the AI's knowledge ends in 2021  for ChatGPT 3.5 and December 2023 for ChatGPT 4 in ChatGPT Plus.

How can I adjust the complexity of ChatGPT responses?

You can directly specify the complexity level by including it in your prompt. Add "... at a high school level" or "... at a level intended for a Ph.D. to understand" to the end of your question. You can also increase complexity of output by increasing the richness of your input. The more you provide in your prompt, the more detailed and nuanced ChatGPT's response will be. You can also include other specific instructions, like "Give me a summary," "Explain in detail," or "Provide a technical description."

Also:  How does ChatGPT actually work?

You can also pre-define profiles. For example, you could say "When evaluating something for a manager, assume an individual with a four-year business college education, a lack of detailed technical understanding, and a fairly limited attention span, who likes to get answers that are clear and concise. When evaluating something for a programmer, assume considerable technical knowledge, an enjoyment of geek and science fiction references, and a desire for a complete answer. Accuracy is deeply important to programmers, so double-check your work."

If you ask ChatGPT to "explain C++ to a manager" and "explain C++ to a programmer," you'll see how the responses differ.

What do I do if ChatGPT refuses to answer or I don't like its answer? 

There are some guardrails built into ChatGPT. It tends to shut down if you ask it political questions, for example. That's what's built into the system. While you might be able to tease out an answer, it's probably not going to provide great value. That said, feel free to keep trying with different phrasing or perspectives. 

You can follow my day-to-day project updates on social media. Be sure to subscribe to my weekly update newsletter on Substack , and follow me on Twitter at @DavidGewirtz , on Facebook at Facebook.com/DavidGewirtz , on Instagram at Instagram.com/DavidGewirtz , and on YouTube at YouTube.com/DavidGewirtzTV .

More on AI tools

Google releases two new free resources to help you optimize your ai prompts, humane ai pin: what went wrong and how it can be fixed (before it's too late), how to get started with meta ai in facebook, instagram, and more.

• Newsletters
• Account Activating this button will toggle the display of additional content Account Sign out

The Last Thing This Supreme Court Could Do to Shock Us

There will be no more self-soothing after this..

For three long years, Supreme Court watchers mollified themselves (and others) with vague promises that when the rubber hit the road, even the ultraconservative Federalist Society justices of the Roberts court would put democracy before party whenever they were finally confronted with the legal effort to hold Donald Trump accountable for Jan. 6. There were promising signs: They had, after all, refused to wade into the Trumpian efforts to set aside the election results in 2020. They had, after all, hewed to a kind of sanity in batting away Trumpist claims about presidential records (with the lone exception of Clarence Thomas, too long marinated in the Ginni-scented Kool-Aid to be capable of surprising us, but he was just one vote). We promised ourselves that there would be cool heads and grand bargains and that even though the court might sometimes help Trump in small ways, it would privilege the country in the end. We kept thinking that at least for Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch and Chief Justice John Roberts , the voice of reasoned never-Trumpers might still penetrate the Fox News fog. We told ourselves that at least six justices, and maybe even seven, of the most MAGA-friendly court in history would still want to ensure that this November’s elections would not be the last in history. Political hacks they may be, but they were not lawless ones.

On Thursday, during oral arguments in Trump v. United States , the Republican-appointed justices shattered those illusions. This was the case we had been waiting for, and all was made clear—brutally so. These justices donned the attitude of cynical partisans, repeatedly lending legitimacy to the former president’s outrageous claims of immunity from criminal prosecution. To at least five of the conservatives, the real threat to democracy wasn’t Trump’s attempt to overturn the election—but the Justice Department’s efforts to prosecute him for the act. These justices fear that it is Trump’s prosecution for election subversion that will “destabilize” democracy, requiring them to read a brand-new principle of presidential immunity into a Constitution that guarantees nothing of the sort. They evinced virtually no concern for our ability to continue holding free and fair elections that culminate in a peaceful transfer of power. They instead offered endless solicitude for the former president who fought that transfer of power.

However the court disposes of Trump v. U.S. , the result will almost certainly be precisely what the former president craves: more delays, more hearings, more appeals—more of everything but justice . This was not a legitimate claim from the start, but a wild attempt by Trump’s attorneys to use his former role as chief executive of the United States to shield himself from the consequences of trying to turn the presidency into a dictatorship. After so much speculation that these reasonable, rational jurists would surely dispose of this ridiculous case quickly and easily, Thursday delivered a morass of bad-faith hand-wringing on the right about the apparently unbearable possibility that a president might no longer be allowed to wield his powers of office in pursuit of illegal ends. Just as bad, we heard a constant minimization of Jan. 6, for the second week in a row , as if the insurrection were ancient history, and history that has since been dramatically overblown, presumably for Democrats’ partisan aims.

We got an early taste of this minimization in Trump v. Anderson , the Colorado case about removing Trump from the ballot. The court didn’t have the stomach to discuss the violence at the Capitol in its sharply divided decision, which found for Trump ; indeed, the majority barely mentioned the events of Jan. 6 at all when rejecting Colorado’s effort to bar from the ballot an insurrectionist who tried to steal our democracy. But we let that one be, because we figured special counsel Jack Smith would ride to the rescue. Smith has indicted Trump on election subversion charges related to Jan. 6, and the biggest obstacle standing between the special counsel and a trial has been the former president’s outlandish claim that he has absolute immunity from criminal charges as a result of his having been president at the time. Specifically, Trump alleges that his crusade to overturn the election constituted “official acts” that are immune from criminal liability under a heretofore unknown constitutional principle that the chief executive is quite literally above the law.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held in February that the president does not have blanket or absolute immunity for all actions taken in office, including “official” acts performed under the guise of executing the law (for example, Trump’s attempt to weaponize the DOJ against election results under the pretense of investigating fraud). The D.C. Circuit’s emphatic, cross-ideological decision should have been summarily affirmed by SCOTUS within days. Instead, the justices set it for arguments two months down the road—a bad omen, to put it mildly . Even then, many court watchers held out hope that Thursday morning’s oral arguments were to be the moment for the nine justices of the Supreme Court to finally indicate their readiness to take on Trump, Trumpism, illiberalism, and slouching fascism.

It was not to be. Justice Samuel Alito best captured the spirit of arguments when he asked gravely “what is required for the functioning of a stable democratic society” (good start!), then answered his own question: total immunity for criminal presidents (oh, dear). Indeed, anything but immunity would, he suggested, encourage presidents to commit more crimes to stay in office: “Now, if an incumbent who loses a very close, hotly contested election knows that a real possibility after leaving office is not that the president is going to be able to go off into a peaceful retirement but that the president may be criminally prosecuted by a bitter political opponent, will that not lead us into a cycle that destabilizes the functioning of our country as a democracy?” Never mind that the president in question did not leave office peacefully and is not sitting quietly in retirement but is instead running for presidential office once again. No, if we want criminal presidents to leave office when they lose, we have to let them commit crimes scot-free. If ever a better articulation of the legal principle “Don’t make me hit you again” has been proffered at an oral argument, it’s hard to imagine it.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke to this absurdity when she responded in what could only be heard as a cri de coeur: “Stable democratic society needs good faith of public officials,” she said. “That good faith assumes that they will follow the law.” The justice noted that despite all the protections in place, a democracy can sometimes “potentially fail.” She concluded: “In the end, if it fails completely, it’s because we destroyed our democracy on our own, isn’t it?”

But it was probably too late to make this plea, because by that point we had heard both Alito and Gorsuch opine that presidents must be protected at all costs from the whims of overzealous deep state prosecutors brandishing “vague” criminal statutes. We heard Kavanaugh opine mindlessly on the independent counsel statute and how mean it is to presidents, reading extensively from Justice Antonin Scalia’s dissent in a case arguing that independent counsels are unconstitutional. (Yes, Kavanaugh worked for Ken Starr , the independent counsel.) If you’re clocking a trend here, it’s gender. Just as was the case in Anderson , it’s the women justices doing the second-shift work here: both probing the thorny constitutional and criminal questions and signaling a refusal to tank democracy over abstractions and deflections. As was the case in the EMTALA arguments, it’s the women who understand what it looks like to cheat death.

Is the president, Sotomayor asked, immune from prosecution if he orders the military to assassinate a political rival? Yes, said John Sauer, who represented Trump—though it “depends on the circumstances.” Could the president, Justice Elena Kagan asked, order the military to stage a coup? Yes, Sauer said again, depending on the circumstances. To which Kagan tartly replied that Sauer’s insistence on specifying the “circumstances” boiled down to “Under my test, it’s an official act, but that sure sounds bad, doesn’t it?” (Cue polite laughter in the chamber.)

This shameless, maximalist approach should have drawn anger from the conservative justices—indignation, at least, that Sauer took them for such easy marks. But it turns out that he calibrated his terrible arguments just right. The cynicism on display was truly breathtaking: Alito winkingly implied to Michael Dreeben, representing Smith, that we all know that Justice Department lawyers are political hacks, right? Roberts mocked Dreeben for saying “There’s no reason to worry because the prosecutor will act in good faith.”

The conservative justices are so in love with their own voices and so convinced of their own rectitude that they monologued about how improper it was for Dreeben to keep talking about the facts of this case, as opposed to the “abstract” principles at play. “I’m talking about the future!” Kavanaugh declared at one point to Dreeben, pitching himself not as Trump’s human shield but as a principled defender of the treasured constitutional right of all presidents to do crime. (We’re sure whatever rule he cooks up will apply equally to Democratic presidents, right?) Kavanaugh eventually landed on the proposition that prosecutors may charge presidents only under criminal statutes that explicitly state they can be applied to the president. Which, as Sotomayor pointed out, would mean no charges everywhere, because just a tiny handful of statutes are stamped with the label “CAN BE APPLIED TO PRESIDENT.”

The words bold and fearless action were repeated on a loop today, as a kind of mantra of how effective presidents must be free to act quickly and decisively to save democracy from the many unanticipated threats it faces. And yet the court—which has been asked to take bold and fearless action to deter the person who called Georgia’s secretary of state to demand that he alter the vote count, and threatened to fire DOJ officials who would not help steal an election—is backing away from its own duty. The prospect of a criminal trial for a criminal president shocked and appalled five men: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch suggested that Smith’s entire prosecution is unconstitutional; meanwhile, Roberts sounded eager at times to handle the case just a hair more gracefully: by cutting out its heart by preventing the jury from hearing about “official acts” (which lie at the center of the alleged conspiracy). Justice Amy Coney Barrett was far more measured, teasing out a compromise with Dreeben that would compel the trial court to tell the jury it could not impose criminal liability for these “official” acts, only “private ones.” Remember, drawing that line would require months of hearings and appeals, pushing any trial into 2025 or beyond. The president who tried to steal the most recent election is running in the next one, which is happening in mere months.

The liberal justices tried their best to make the case that justice required denying Trump’s sweeping immunity claim, permitting the trial to move forward, and sorting out lingering constitutional issues afterward, as virtually all other criminal defendants must do. They got little traction. Everyone on that bench was well aware that the entire nation was listening to arguments; that the whole nation wants to understand whether Trump’s refusal to concede the 2020 election was an existential threat to democracy or a lark. Five justices sent the message, loud and clear, that they are far more worried about Trump’s prosecution at the hands of the deep-state DOJ than about his alleged crimes, which were barely mentioned. This trial will almost certainly face yet more delays. These delays might mean that its subject could win back the presidency in the meantime and render the trial moot. But the court has now signaled that nothing he did was all that serious and that the danger he may pose is not worth reining in. The real threats they see are the ones Trump himself shouts from the rooftops: witch hunts and partisan Biden prosecutors. These men have picked their team. The rest hardly matters.

Cursive is making a comeback: Gov. Stitt signs law requiring it to be taught in schools

Law codifies cursive writing for kids in third through fifth grade.

As Oklahoma kids today grow up with technology integrated into their world, there’s still at least one “old fashioned” thing they’ll learn: cursive handwriting .

Gov. Kevin Stitt signed a bill into law this week requiring that cursive handwriting be taught in state schools.

Two Democrats, Oklahoma City Rep. Jason Lowe and Tulsa Sen. Kevin Matthews, sponsored the bill. Lowe said in a news release that cursive handwriting — as well as grammar, handwriting and spelling — is shown to improve neural and motor function.

Lowe seems to be on target. A 2012 study found handwriting — not typing or tracing letter shapes — activated a unique “reading circuit” in the brain. More recent studies are finding strong evidence to suggest handwriting benefits memory, stronger learning pathways, thinking and fine motor skills, according to Psychology Today .

It’s also helpful to read historical documents and letters from family and friends. Matthews said, “I feel that children should be able to uniquely sign their name, read historical documents and understand what their grandparents and relatives have written in the past.”

Two dozen states have required teaching cursive in schools

Oklahoma joins 23 other states in requiring schools to teach the writing and reading skill, according to mycursive.com , a website that is dedicated to tracking cursive writing requirements in the United States. The law will affect schools beginning next school year. By the end of fifth grade, students should be able to read and legibly write in cursive.

Tony Rose, executive director of educational services at Edmond Public Schools, said the district's third- through fifth-grade teachers already teach some form of cursive. It’s required by the Oklahoma Education Standards . The new legislation puts the standard into the law books.

Rose said cursive writing helps students build their comprehension of language. Even though students live in a digital world, they still need a well-rounded education, he said.

“It puts our students at a disadvantage if they can’t read it or write it,” he said.

In debate over the bill, some suggested cursive writing might be nearing obsolescence.

However, there are signs it may be making a comeback with a growing interest in calligraphy and other forms of decorative handwriting. Social media platforms like TikTok and Instagram are filled with examples of people showing off their handwriting skills, with many young people embracing the idea that handwriting can be a form of self-expression.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

David Brooks

Why Are We Gambling With America’s Future?

By David Brooks

Opinion Columnist

Over the past few decades, in a surge of bipartisan national self-confidence, the federal government has borrowed a lot of money, sometimes in response to national emergencies and sometimes to do the things people thought were worth doing. We gave ourselves permission to incur all this debt because interest rates were low and many people assumed that things would stay that way, so the costs of carrying that much debt wouldn’t be too onerous.

Unfortunately, that assumption turned out to be incorrect. Interest rates have risen. According to The Wall Street Journal , America is expected to spend $870 billion, or 3.1 percent of gross domestic product, this year on interest payments on the federal debt. According to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget , the government will spend more on interest payments than on the entire defense budget. Within three years, if interest rates remain high, payments on the debt could become the federal government’s second-largest expenditure, behind Social Security.

When money is tight, as it is now, government borrowing competes with private borrowing, driving interest rates up for everybody. A 2019 Congressional Budget Office study found that every 10 percent increase in the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio results in an increase in interest rates of two-tenths to three-tenths of a percentage point. That makes voters miserable, as they are now, because it’s more expensive to, say, get a mortgage or some other kind of loan.

It makes government accountants miserable because the very act of borrowing money to pay off debt can drive interest rates higher and make the prospect of paying off debt even more expensive. You have to worry about the long-term nightmare possibility of a debt spiral, in which you have to borrow and borrow to service the debt while the act of borrowing itself makes paying off the debt more unaffordable.

Pretty soon, you’re staring at Ferguson’s Law. This is the principle enunciated by the historian Niall Ferguson that any nation that spends more on interest payments on the debt than on military spending will slip into decline. It happened to Hapsburg Spain, the Ottoman Empire, the British Empire and prerevolutionary France. Will it happen to us?

You don’t have to get to these nightmare scenarios to see all the problems that can be caused by excessive federal debt. All that fiscal stimulus can cause inflation, as it is doing now. Public sector borrowing can crowd out private sector borrowing, thus slowing the economic growth you need to pay off the debt.

The debt burden also constrains future administrations, which have to worry so much about paying off the debt they are less able to invest in programs that might increase growth, reduce child poverty, educate children, house people or respond to emergencies. Today’s high interest rate environment is already hammering, say, the housing construction industry and making housing even more unaffordable.

The United States continues to borrow all this money even though classical Keynesian theory tells us to borrow in times of recession but commit to debt reduction in times like these, when growth is good.

We continue to go deeper into debt even though the storm clouds are gathering around the world. The axis of resentment — China, Russia and Iran — is on the march, making the world a more dangerous place and possibly necessitating a surge in military spending and a rapid need to beef up our military manufacturing infrastructure.

We continue to go further into debt even though the baby boom generation is aging, making programs like Social Security and Medicare more and more costly. The federal government already spends $6 on senior citizens for every $1 on children, which is not exactly investing in the future.

Personally, I’m not bothered that we spent all that borrowed money during Covid. We clearly needed to, and we’ve emerged from the pandemic with a dynamic economy. My concern is that deficit reduction is not high on either party’s agenda right now. Donald Trump has proposed whopping tax cuts. The Biden administration has an ambitious second-term agenda that would involve everything from industrial policy to student debt forgiveness to growth through fiscal stimulus.

Even if a president proposed debt reduction (as Biden has to some degree), a polarized Congress probably couldn’t pass it. As the budget expert Maya MacGuineas has pointed out, these days Congress favors giveaways over budget choices. It is infinitely more difficult to get bipartisan majorities to cut spending or raise taxes on the bulk of Americans than it is to get it to spend with borrowed money.

Ultimately responsibility lies with the voters. In the 1990s, Americans saw how high government debt was raising their interest rates. Voters put tremendous pressure on politicians to get the fiscal house in order. Along came Ross Perot and deficit reduction plans under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Voters today have not yet made that connection. When they do, I suspect the political landscape will shift massively.

Maybe none of the problems I’m describing will get worse. Maybe interest rates will fall (though they have remained stubbornly high). Maybe economic growth will outpace interest rate increases, making the debt more affordable. Maybe the government will be able to pour massive stimulus into the economy without leading to continued inflation and high rates.

But this is a gigantic gamble. It’s a gamble that rosy scenarios about future inflation and interest rate declines will come to pass. It’s a gamble that nothing unexpectedly bad will happen in the world. It’s a gamble that our leadership class is so good at what it does that we can continue to walk along the cliff’s edge without any danger of falling over.

At some point all this self-confidence begins to look like hubris or a rationalization for: We want to spend the future’s money on ourselves. Prudence is a boring virtue, but the prudent course is to get the United States on a more sustainable course. As the meme artists on the internet might say (in slightly more colorful language), you mess around with debt, and sooner or later you’ll find out.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .

David Brooks has been a columnist with The Times since 2003. He is the author, most recently,  of “How to Know a Person: The Art of Seeing Others Deeply and Being Deeply Seen.” @ nytdavidbrooks