Chapter 3: How to Build A Pyramid Structure
tpp pyramid-principle logic-in-writing building-pyramid top-down bottom-up scqa key-line caveats
Status: Notes complete
Overview
Chapter 3 is the practical application chapter, taking the theory of Chapters 1 and 2 and turning it into concrete procedures for constructing a pyramid. It presents two approaches — top-down and bottom-up — and explains when each is appropriate and how to execute each one. The top-down approach is easier and should be tried first: you begin by working through a six-step process that forces you to identify the Subject, the Question your reader has, your Answer, and then the Situation/Complication narrative that validates these choices. Once the introduction is worked out, the Key Line follows naturally from the “New Question” raised by the Answer.
For situations where the top is not yet clear, the bottom-up approach provides a three-step process: list all the points you think you want to make, work out the relationships between them by mapping cause-and-effect, and draw conclusions. The memorandum example from a printing company demonstrates how a rambling, unclear document can be restructured into a clean pyramid by following this process.
The chapter ends with six practical caveats for beginners — warnings about common mistakes and useful heuristics. The most important: always try the top-down approach first, always think through the SCQA introduction even if you think you know the answer, prefer inductive over deductive structure at the Key Line, and reserve historical chronology exclusively for the introduction (not the body of the document).
Core Concepts
Top-down approach: Building the pyramid by starting with what is most certain — the Subject and the reader’s Question — and working downward through the introduction check, the New Question, and the Key Line.
Bottom-up approach: Building the pyramid by listing all candidate points first, then working out their relationships, then drawing conclusions to form the top.
Subject: The topic of the document; what you are discussing. The subject of the top-level sentence.
Question: The specific question in the reader’s mind about the Subject that your document answers.
Answer: The top-level point of your pyramid — the single thought that answers the reader’s Question.
New Question: The question the Answer raises in the reader’s mind, which the Key Line then answers.
Key Line: The set of ideas directly below the Answer that collectively address the New Question.
Exhibit 4 — The elements of the structure check each other (p.22): A diagram showing the numbered steps of the top-down approach mapped onto a pyramid skeleton:
- Steps 1-3: Fill in the top box (Subject/Predicate, Question, Answer)
- Steps 4-6: Match the Answer to the introduction (Situation=4, Complication=5, check Q and A still follow=6)
- Step 6: Find the New Question raised by the Answer
- Step 7: Will you answer it deductively or inductively?
- Step 8: Structure the support points — repeat the question/answer process at this level
The Top-Down Approach
The top-down approach is generally easier because you begin with what you are most certain about: the subject you are discussing and what the reader already knows about it (which you will remind them of in the introduction).
The Six-Step Procedure
Step 1 — Draw a box (identify the Subject)
Write down in the top box the subject you are discussing, if you know it. If not, move to step 2.
Step 2 — Decide the Question
Visualize your reader. To whom are you writing, and what question do you want to have answered in their mind about the Subject when you have finished writing? State the Question if you know it, or go to step 4.
Step 3 — Write down the Answer
State the Answer if you know it, or note that you can answer it.
Step 4 — Identify the Situation
To confirm you have the right Question and Answer, work through the introduction by taking the Subject and moving up to the Situation. The first sentence of the Situation must be a statement about the Subject — the first noncontroversial thing you can say about it, something the reader will not question.
Step 5 — Develop the Complication
Imagine the reader nodding and saying “Yes, I know that, so what?” This should lead you to think of what happened in that Situation to raise the reader’s Question. Something went wrong, a problem arose, or a logical discrepancy became apparent.
Step 6 — Recheck the Question and Answer
The Complication should immediately raise the Question you wrote in step 2. If it does not, either change the Question to the one the Complication actually raises, or revise the Complication. The purpose is to make sure you know what Question you are trying to answer — once you have the right Question, everything else falls into place.
Finding the Key Line
Once the Introduction is checked (steps 4-6), move downward:
Step 6b (New Question): Given that the Answer is stated, what New Question would it raise in the reader’s mind?
Step 7: Will you answer it deductively or inductively?
Step 8: Structure the support points — repeat the question/answer process at this level.
The Big Chief Example (Exhibits 5 and 6)
Before (Exhibit 5 — “The points do not answer the question”): A memo from the Accounting Department of a soft drinks company, responding to a customer (hamburger emporium “Big Chief”) who wanted to send delivery tickets on disk daily instead of the current five-week processing cycle. The memo describes how the new system would technically work (record formats, extract programs, balancing procedures), but never actually answers the question: “Is it a good idea?”
After applying the top-down process:
- Subject = “BC request for change in billing system”
- Question = “Is it a good idea?”
- Answer = “Yes”
- Situation = “They requested a change in the procedure” (noncontroversial)
- Complication = “You asked me whether it makes sense” (what triggered the need to write)
- Check: Does the Complication raise “Does it make sense?” — Yes, it does. Q and A hold.
- New Question = “Why?” (since the Answer is “Yes, it’s a good idea,” the reader asks Why)
- Key Line reasons (all three are “reasons for yes”):
- It will give us the information we need
- It will increase our cash flow
- It will reduce our work load
Exhibit 6 — “The points do answer the question”: The pyramid diagram shows S = “They requested change,” C = “You asked if it makes sense,” Q = “Does it make sense?” with the Answer “BC request for change in billing system is a good idea” and three Key Line branches: “Will give us all the information we need” / “Will increase our cash flow” / “Will reduce our work load.”
The contrast is stark: the original memo buried the “Yes” answer and gave no reasons; the restructured pyramid leads with the answer and organizes all information as support.
The Bottom-Up Approach
When thinking is not yet developed enough to determine the top of the pyramid — when you cannot decide the Subject, or the Question is unclear, or you are not sure what the reader knows — move straight to the Key Line level. You work up from the bottom using a 3-step process.
The Three Steps
Step 1: List all the points you think you want to make
Write down everything you think belongs in the document without judging or organizing. Do not try to structure yet.
Step 2: Work out the relationships between them
Look for cause-and-effect relationships, patterns, and groupings. Map the logical connections visually if helpful (a flow chart of cause-and-effect is useful here).
Step 3: Draw conclusions
From the relationships you’ve mapped, determine what the evidence collectively proves or implies. This gives you the top-level point(s) and Key Line.
The TTW (Printing Company) Example (Exhibits 7 and 8)
Before (Exhibit 7 — “The reasoning rambles”): A memo from a young consultant after two weeks on an engagement at TTW, a printing company. It contains: data on composing cost percentages (40-55% of total costs), a comparison with PAR standards showing low productivity, information about union demands and compositor shortages, and four conclusions (reduce costs by simplifying processes, conduct experiments, carry out methods studies, compare with competitors). The memo is a data dump — the reasoning is obscured by the order of presentation.
Applying the bottom-up process:
Step 1 — List the points:
Problems listed: (1) low productivity in composing, (2) same steps for each job, (3) uncompetitive prices for simple jobs, (4) behind schedule, (5) paying lower wages, (6) shortage of people, (7) high overtime, (8) below PAR in setting and hand composition
Solutions listed: (1) simplify the process for cheap jobs, (2) increase productivity by changing methods
Step 2 — Work out the relationships (Exhibit, p.28): A cause-and-effect flow map shows:
- Chain 1: Low wages (5) → No people (6) → Behind schedule (4) → High overtime (7) → (?) High costs → Uncompetitive price (3)
- Chain 2: Same steps (2) → Below PAR (8) → Low productivity (1) → also feeds into High costs
Two separate causal lines are revealed. The two solutions correspond to fixing the two separate causes: (1) simplify the process (addresses same steps/low productivity), (2) raise wages (addresses the people shortage/overtime chain).
Step 3 — Draw conclusions (Exhibit, p.29): Two possible framings:
- “Costs are high” (because low productivity + high overtime) → implies need to cut costs
- “To cut costs” → eliminate steps (for simple jobs) + raise wages (overall)
The writer then thinks through the introduction:
- Subject = composing room costs
- Question = are they too high?
- Answer = yes
- Situation = composing costs are the most important element in total cost
- Complication = don’t know if they are too high a proportion, but uncompetitiveness indicates they might be
- New Question = how? (to cut them)
- Key Line = eliminate unnecessary steps in the composing process + raise wages to competitive levels
After (Exhibit 8 — “The conclusions are clear”): The rewritten memo leads with the key finding (composing costs could be cut considerably) and the two Key Line recommendations (Eliminating Steps / Raising Wages), followed by sections explaining each in detail.
The note on headings: headings should state ideas rather than categories. “Findings” and “Conclusions” are category labels with no scanning value. “Eliminating Unnecessary Steps” and “Raising Wages to Competitive Levels” are ideas — they communicate meaning even when read alone.
Caveats For Beginners
Six practical warnings for those new to the pyramid approach:
1. Always try top-down first
The minute you write an idea down, it takes on an apparent beauty and permanence that makes you reluctant to revise it. If you dictate the whole document “to get it all down,” you will love it when you see it typed — no matter how disjointed the thinking really is. Always structure the top first; it is much harder to restructure after the fact.
2. Use the Situation as the starting point for thinking through the introduction
Once you know what to say in the bulk of the introduction — Situation, Complication, Question, Answer — you can place these elements in any order you like depending on the effect you want to create. The order affects the tone of the document. But always begin your thinking with the Situation, since you are more likely to identify the correct Complication and Question following that order.
3. Don’t omit to think through the introduction
When the main point is fully formed in your head, the Question that triggered it seems obvious, so you are tempted to jump directly to the Key Line and begin answering the New Question. Resist this. In most cases, you will find that you end up structuring information that properly belongs in the Situation or Complication as a Key Line point, forcing yourself into a complicated and unwieldy deductive argument. Sort out the introductory information first; leave yourself free to concentrate solely on ideas at the lower levels.
4. Always put historical chronology in the introduction
The body of the document can contain only ideas — statements that raise a new question in the reader’s mind because they present new thinking. Ideas relate to each other only logically. Simple historical events are not the result of logical thought and therefore cannot be included as body ideas. Historical “what happened” information belongs only in the introduction, where it helps establish the Situation. You can talk about events in the body only if you are spelling out cause-and-effect relationships discovered through analysis.
5. Limit the introduction to what the reader will agree is true
The introduction must contain only what the reader already knows (or could check and verify). Including new information in the introduction distorts the reader’s Question — if they had known that information, they would have asked a different question. Conversely, do not include in the pyramid body any information the reader already knows: that would imply you left important information out of the introduction.
6. Prefer induction over deduction at the Key Line level
Inductive reasoning at the Key Line is easier for the reader to absorb than deductive reasoning — it requires less mental effort to comprehend. The tendency is to present thinking in the order it was developed, which is generally deductive. But the fact that you developed ideas deductively does not mean you must present them that way.
The warehouse example (Exhibit, p.32): A deductive Key Line reads: (1) “We use three criteria to judge whether to buy a warehouse,” (2) “This building meets those criteria,” (3) “Therefore, buy.” The third point raises no further question and is overstructured. The inductive equivalent collapses this to a single top-level point: “Buy the Pacific Avenue warehouse because it meets our criteria,” with three Key Line points: “It is on a corner” / “It is larger than 5000 sq ft” / “It is under $10 a sq ft.” This is cleaner and easier to absorb.
Summary: When to Use Each Approach
| Situation | Approach |
|---|---|
| You know your Subject, have a sense of the Question, and can state an Answer | Top-down |
| Your Subject is unclear, the Question is fuzzy, or you don’t know the reader’s starting knowledge | Bottom-up |
| You have a mass of existing data/analysis and need to structure it | Bottom-up |
| You are writing a short, straightforward memo or report | Top-down |
Key Takeaways
- You can build a pyramid either top-down (easier, try first) or bottom-up (for underdeveloped thinking).
- The top-down procedure has six steps: identify Subject → decide Question → write Answer → identify Situation → develop Complication → recheck Question and Answer.
- The purpose of working through the introduction is to verify that you have the correct Question — once you have the right Question, everything else falls into place.
- The bottom-up procedure has three steps: list all points → work out relationships between them → draw conclusions.
- Mapping cause-and-effect relationships visually (flow chart) is one of the most useful techniques in the bottom-up approach.
- The body of a document can contain only ideas (statements that raise new questions through new thinking); historical events belong only in the introduction.
- Headings should express ideas, not categories — “Eliminating Unnecessary Steps” communicates meaning; “Findings” does not.
- Always try top-down first because writing down an idea gives it false permanence; it is much harder to restructure later.
- Prefer inductive over deductive structure at the Key Line: induction is easier for readers to absorb and avoids overstructured deductive chains.
- The entire point of the pyramid structure is that if your thinking in the first 30 seconds of reading is not clear, you should rewrite. A well-structured document gives its full message in the introduction.
Related Chapters
- ch01-why-a-pyramid-structure — Provides the three pyramid rules that any valid structure must obey
- ch02-substructures-within-pyramid — Explains the vertical, horizontal, and introductory substructures that the build procedures rely on