@MichaelWright I don't understand why The Economist is a go-to answer for this. The Economist is famous for their clear prose, with use of active voice, simple language, avoidance of metaphors and so forth. That's why The Economist is a great example of how lawyers should write (and is often recommended for that purpose). The same cannot be said for the prose often seen in RC passages, which is probably closer to how lawyers actually write (not great).

feel like all of the passage types have the same structure, i.e. 1) what is the subject matter, 2) what does someone way about it, 3) what are the reasons given [shrug]