Identifying the Main Conclusion

The main conclusion is the single most important element of any LNAT passage. It is the claim that the entire argument is designed to support — the point that every premise, every example, and every rebuttal ultimately serves. "What is the main conclusion?" is the most commonly asked question type in Section A, and even when the question does not ask for it directly, identifying the main conclusion is essential for answering almost every other question type.

---

What the Main Conclusion Is

The main conclusion is the author's central claim — the position they are arguing for. It is not:

• A fact or piece of evidence (that is a premise)
• A claim that supports something bigger (that is a sub-conclusion or intermediate conclusion)
• A view the author disagrees with (that is a counter-argument)
• Background information (that is context)

Definition: The main conclusion is the claim that is supported by everything else in the passage and supports nothing further within the passage.

---

Conclusion Indicators

Authors often (though not always) signal their conclusion with specific words and phrases:

Indicator	Example
Therefore	"Therefore, the policy should be reformed."
Thus	"Thus, the evidence points in one direction."
Hence	"Hence, the proposal is unjustified."
Consequently	"Consequently, we must act."
It follows that	"It follows that the current approach is inadequate."
In conclusion	"In conclusion, the benefits outweigh the costs."
The key point is	"The key point is that prevention is more effective than punishment."
I argue that	"I argue that the system needs fundamental change."
We must conclude that	"We must conclude that the status quo is unsustainable."
This shows that	"This shows that intervention is both necessary and effective."

Warning: Not every conclusion has an indicator word, and not every use of "therefore" marks the main conclusion (it may mark a sub-conclusion). Always verify using the tests below.

---

The "Therefore" Test

The "therefore" test is the most reliable method for identifying the main conclusion.

How It Works

Take the claim you think is the conclusion and the claims you think are premises. Arrange them as:

"[Premises]. Therefore, [Conclusion]."

If this arrangement makes sense — if the premises genuinely support the conclusion — you have identified the conclusion correctly.

Applied Example

From a passage about tuition fees:

• Claim A: "Tuition fees deter students from disadvantaged backgrounds."
• Claim B: "The current system saddles graduates with decades of debt."
• Claim C: "The government should abolish tuition fees."

Test: "Tuition fees deter disadvantaged students and saddle graduates with debt. Therefore, the government should abolish tuition fees."

This works. Claim C is the conclusion; Claims A and B are premises.

Reverse Test

Now test whether A could be the conclusion: "The government should abolish tuition fees. Therefore, tuition fees deter disadvantaged students."

This does not work — the fact that fees should be abolished does not logically cause them to deter students. The relationship is the other way around.

---

The "Because" Test

The "because" test works in the opposite direction:

"[Conclusion] because [premises]."

Applied Example

"The government should abolish tuition fees because they deter disadvantaged students and because they saddle graduates with decades of debt."

This works — confirming that the abolition claim is the conclusion.

---

Distinguishing Main Conclusions from Sub-Conclusions

This is where the difficulty increases. A sub-conclusion is a claim that:

1. Is supported by premises (making it look like a conclusion)
2. Itself supports the main conclusion (making it function as a premise for the bigger argument)

How to Tell Them Apart

Ask: "Does this claim support something bigger in the passage?"

• If yes → it is a sub-conclusion (or intermediate conclusion), not the main conclusion
• If no → it is the main conclusion

Worked Example

"The prison system fails to rehabilitate offenders. Reoffending rates have remained above 40% for over a decade, and overcrowding prevents meaningful educational or therapeutic programmes. The current approach to incarceration is therefore not working. Yet the government continues to build new prisons rather than invest in community sentences, which have been shown to reduce reoffending by up to 30%. We need a fundamental shift from incarceration to community-based rehabilitation."

Claim	Status	Why
"Reoffending rates above 40%"	Premise	Evidence supporting the next claim
"Overcrowding prevents programmes"	Premise	Evidence supporting the next claim
"The current approach is not working"	Sub-conclusion	Supported by the premises above, but itself supports the main conclusion
"Community sentences reduce reoffending by 30%"	Premise	Evidence supporting the main conclusion
"We need a shift to community-based rehabilitation"	Main conclusion	Supported by everything else; supports nothing further

The Chain

Evidence (reoffending rates, overcrowding)
  → Sub-conclusion (the system is not working)
    + Evidence (community sentences reduce reoffending)
      → Main conclusion (shift to community rehabilitation)

---