Identifying Conclusions

The single most important skill in LNAT Section A is the ability to identify the main conclusion of a passage. Many questions ask you directly: "What is the author's main conclusion?" or "Which of the following best expresses the author's argument?" Even when questions test other skills, you cannot evaluate an argument without first knowing what the author is trying to prove.

---

Why Conclusions Are Tricky

In well-written argumentative prose — the kind you encounter on the LNAT — conclusions are not always obvious. Authors do not always place the conclusion at the end, and they do not always use indicator words. You must learn to identify the conclusion from the logical structure of the passage, not from its position or formatting.

---

Conclusion Indicator Words

Certain words and phrases frequently signal that a conclusion is about to follow:

Indicator	Example
Therefore	"Crime rates have risen; therefore, we need tougher sentencing."
Hence	"The evidence is inconclusive; hence, the policy should be reconsidered."
Thus	"Renewable energy is cheaper; thus, the transition should be accelerated."
Consequently	"Funding has been cut; consequently, services will decline."
It follows that	"All citizens are equal before the law; it follows that discrimination is unjustifiable."
So	"The study was flawed, so we cannot rely on its findings."
We can conclude that	"We can conclude that the policy has been ineffective."
This means that	"This means that the current approach is unsustainable."
This shows that	"This shows that regulation is necessary."

Warning: These indicators are helpful but not infallible. Sometimes authors use "therefore" to introduce an intermediate conclusion, not the main conclusion. Always check whether the statement is the final point the author is arguing for.

---

Main Conclusions vs Intermediate Conclusions

This distinction is critical on the LNAT. An intermediate conclusion is supported by some premises and then itself acts as a premise for the main conclusion.

Worked Example

Consider this passage:

"Research consistently shows that children who read for pleasure achieve higher grades across all subjects. Reading for pleasure also develops empathy and emotional intelligence. It is therefore clear that reading is essential for children's intellectual and emotional development. The government should consequently make reading programmes a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum."

Let us map the structure:

Component	Statement
Premise 1	Children who read for pleasure achieve higher grades across all subjects
Premise 2	Reading for pleasure develops empathy and emotional intelligence
Intermediate conclusion	Reading is essential for children's intellectual and emotional development
Main conclusion	The government should make reading programmes a compulsory part of the primary school curriculum

How to tell the difference: The intermediate conclusion ("reading is essential...") is supported by Premises 1 and 2. But it is then used as a reason for the main conclusion ("the government should make reading programmes compulsory"). The main conclusion is the statement that everything else in the passage is ultimately working to support.

The "Because" Test

A reliable method for distinguishing the main conclusion from an intermediate conclusion is the "because" test:

1. Take two candidate conclusions
2. Insert "because" between them
3. The version that sounds logically correct identifies the main conclusion

Test: "The government should make reading programmes compulsory because reading is essential for intellectual and emotional development."

This sounds correct. The reading being essential is the reason for the policy recommendation.