Identifying Intermediate Conclusions

Intermediate conclusions — also called sub-conclusions — are one of the most tested and most misunderstood elements in LNAT passages. They sit between premises and the main conclusion, functioning as stepping stones in the argument. Understanding them is essential because LNAT questions frequently require you to distinguish a sub-conclusion from the main conclusion, or to identify which role a particular claim plays in the argument.

---

What Is an Intermediate Conclusion?

An intermediate conclusion is a claim that:

1. Is supported by one or more premises (making it a conclusion of a sub-argument)
2. Itself supports the main conclusion (making it function as a premise for the overall argument)

This dual role is what makes intermediate conclusions distinctive — and confusing. The same claim is simultaneously a conclusion (of the sub-argument) and a premise (of the main argument).

Formal Definition: An intermediate conclusion is a claim that appears in a chain of reasoning between the initial premises and the final conclusion. It is derived from earlier claims and used to derive later claims.

---

Why Intermediate Conclusions Matter for the LNAT

LNAT questions test intermediate conclusions in several ways:

Question Type	What You Need to Identify
"Which of the following is an intermediate conclusion?"	The claim that is both supported by evidence and supports the main conclusion
"What is the main conclusion?"	You must not confuse the intermediate conclusion with the main conclusion
"The author argues that X in order to..."	You must recognise that X (an intermediate conclusion) supports the main conclusion
"Which of the following best describes the role of [claim]?"	You must identify whether the claim is a premise, intermediate conclusion, or main conclusion

---

How to Identify Intermediate Conclusions

Test 1: The Dual-Role Test

For any claim in the passage, ask two questions:

1. Is it supported by reasons or evidence? (If yes, it could be a conclusion)
2. Does it support a further, bigger claim? (If yes, it is an intermediate conclusion, not the main one)

If the answer to both questions is "yes", the claim is an intermediate conclusion.

Test 2: The Removal Test

Mentally remove the claim from the passage. Ask:

• Do the initial premises still make sense on their own? (They should — they do not depend on the intermediate conclusion)
• Can the main conclusion still be reached directly from the initial premises? (Usually not as smoothly — the intermediate conclusion is a necessary stepping stone)

If removing the claim leaves a logical gap between the premises and the main conclusion, it is an intermediate conclusion that bridges that gap.

Test 3: The "Therefore... Therefore" Test

In a chain of reasoning, you should be able to insert "therefore" at two points:

"[Premises]. Therefore, [intermediate conclusion]. Therefore, [main conclusion]."

If this double "therefore" structure works, you have correctly identified the intermediate conclusion.

---

Worked Example: A Two-Step Argument

"The number of people sleeping rough in England has risen by 150% in the past decade. Local authority funding for homelessness services has been cut by 40% over the same period. The government's current approach to homelessness is clearly failing. If the current approach is failing, a new strategy is needed — one that addresses the root causes of homelessness, including lack of affordable housing, mental health provision, and support for those leaving prison or care. The government must develop and fund a comprehensive national homelessness strategy."

Analysis

Claim	Role	Evidence
"Rough sleeping has risen by 150%"	Premise	Statistical evidence
"Funding has been cut by 40%"	Premise	Statistical evidence
"The government's approach is clearly failing"	Intermediate conclusion	Supported by the two premises above; supports the main conclusion below
"A new strategy is needed that addresses root causes"	Supporting reasoning	Bridges the intermediate conclusion and the main conclusion
"The government must develop a comprehensive strategy"	Main conclusion	The ultimate point of the argument

Verification with the "Therefore... Therefore" Test

"Rough sleeping has risen by 150% and funding has been cut by 40%. Therefore, the government's current approach is failing. Therefore, the government must develop a comprehensive national homelessness strategy."

This works. Two clear "therefore" steps confirm the intermediate conclusion.

---

Chains of Reasoning

Some passages contain not just one intermediate conclusion but a chain — a series of stepping stones leading from initial premises to the final conclusion.

Example: A Three-Step Chain

"Antibiotic resistance is increasing because of the overuse of antibiotics in both human medicine and agriculture. [Premises] If current trends continue, common infections that are currently treatable will become deadly within a generation. [Intermediate conclusion 1] This represents a public health crisis of the first order. [Intermediate conclusion 2] Governments must act now to restrict the non-essential use of antibiotics and invest in the development of new antimicrobial treatments. [Main conclusion]"

Chain Structure

Premises (overuse in medicine and agriculture)
  → Intermediate conclusion 1 (infections will become deadly)
    → Intermediate conclusion 2 (this is a public health crisis)
      → Main conclusion (governments must act)