The idea of “telling a story” is a good one. I happened upon it last year when I visited a site offering advice for fiction writing. The “three-act” form seemed like an interesting model for structuring a short non-fiction piece, so I tried it and it worked pretty well for me.

Act I identifies the ideas that will be considered. If they may be new to the reader, they need an explanation. By the end of the act, readers should see a problem, conflict, or opportunity–something that needs resolution. This will be the article’s main “character.” They should also know if the rest of the article is even worth reading.

Act II explores the problem, showing examples, describing subtleties, maybe analogizing to a similar but more familiar problem. If it’s a conflict, readers want to know how it came about and why it remains a conflict. If it’s an opportunity, they need to know if taking advantage of it is harder or easier than it seems. And, the march toward resolution progresses as helpful or limiting new ideas are introduced. The transition made by the main “character” (the problem) in the second act is from defined but poorly understood to well understood. Readers see the deeper texture of the problem/conflict/opportunity and have developed their own ideas about resolution.

Act III resolves the problem. The pieces are lined up, and readers have at least an inkling of how it will play out. The main character–the question at hand–is understood, and auxiliary characters–available devices and limiting constraints–are known. Now the writer puts it all together. “Here’s why the California wildfire season was so devastating this year.” “Here’s how to achieve world peace.” “To make a perfect cup of coffee every time…” BTW, your advice to end with an important point, revelation, anecdote or quote has helped me past the awkward feeling of “how the heck do I end this thing?” a few times.