How do I find a conclusion on the LSAT?

The LSAT is entirely about argumentation. This is true of both sections, Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension. This is part of why the LSAT is relevant to law school. And a conclusion is the endpoint of an argument. Think of it as kicking a can down the road. You kick it, catch up, kick it again, realize this game is stupid and stop. Where the can ends up? That's the conclusion. Every kick that got you there? Each of those is a premise. A premise is the means to an end, and the conclusion is the end itself.

What is an argument? What are the components? Broadly, an argument is a conclusion combined with evidence for the conclusion. You can consider these definitions:

Conclusion: A declaration, opinion, or stance that has support. It cannot support itself. It is not a fact, and it is not offering support to anything else.

Premise: A fact, declaration, opinion, or stance that is offering support to another piece of information.

 Let’s dive into how to identify those components and how to see what matters -- and, of course, what doesn’t.

Side skill: Finding a Conclusion

Finding a conclusion may seem hard, but it is a skill that you use on virtually every Logical Reasoning and Reading Comprehension question, so you’ll need to have it become second nature if you want to do well on the LSAT. But it’s easy because it’s something that you do anyway in everyday conversation. A conclusion is the main point that someone is trying to make in their argument, which is found in the passage. 

Consider: 

John: Ellen, you said that peas should be in the stew that I’m making. But that’s silly. I need to cook the stew for at least 10 hours so that the meat is best, and the peas will become nothing more than green mush by that point. 

Let’s break this down structurally to try to understand the relationship between sentences. The ultimate point being proven -- the stance, or argument being made -- is the conclusion. It will by definition have evidence, or a premise. 

Clearly, John’s point is that peas should not be in the stew. The explicit sentence, then, that forms his conclusion is “But that’s silly.” An easy way to find that is to compare each phrase and ask what is supporting what.

Another way to think about a conclusion is that it is often normative, prescriptive, or predictive (and rarely descriptive). This is our first quick introduction to structures. Some definitions of the three common types of conclusions:

Normative: Taking an opinion or stance on a subjective matter (as in: I agree, I disagree, this is good, this is bad, this is right, this is wrong, etc.) Often, this will also use a word that indicates an opinion, such as “clearly” or “silly.” This is the most common conclusion type.

Prescriptive: Telling you to do something (as in: we should, we should not, we need to, we don’t need to, etc.).

Predictive: Claiming something will happen in the future (as in, this will, this will not.) Generally, this will be a causative claim.

If you can’t find a conclusion, you can always use the because test. The phrase that follows “because” is always a premise. So you can add two phrases together and toss the word “because” in the middle. Then switch the two phrases, and keep the word “because” in the middle. Which way makes more sense? That way tells you what is evidence for what. For example:

Our copper exports are diminishing rapidly. We will have to find a new source of income if our budget is to remain unchanged. 

I intentionally didn’t use any indicator terms (more on those in a moment) so that it wasn’t obvious what the conclusion was. But let’s use the because test:

Our copper exports are diminishing rapidly because we will have to find a new source of income. (That doesn’t make any sense.)

Or

We will have to find a new source of income because our copper exports are diminishing rapidly. (That does make sense!) 

So the because test is a failsafe way of identifying which phrase is doing the supporting and which is being supported. The thing at the end of the road, which is being supported but not in turn supporting anything else, that is the conclusion. 

Pattern Indicators for Conclusions

There are pattern indicators that can tell you whether you are looking at a conclusion or a premise. They aren’t 100 percent accurate -- sometimes a premise will have a conclusive indicator attached to a phrase that isn’t the conclusion in order to confuse you, or sometimes a conclusion won’t have an indicator at all. But you can use them as a guide, telling you where to focus your attention. But it is ultimately up to you to check whether patterns are telling you the truth. And this is true of pattern indicators for everything. I use pattern indicators constantly, for every component of the test. But they never solve anything for me. I am the final arbiter of conclusions and every other relationship on the test. Patterns help, but they are just a tool that you are using.

Of course, this is not exhaustive, and the passage could use synonyms of the following as well.

Premise Pattern Indicators 

• Given that ___ is the case

• Since

• This can be seen by the fact that

• For the reason that

• Due/owing to

• Because

  
  

Conclusion Pattern Indicators 

• This shows that

• Thus

• Clearly

• Hence

• So

• Therefore

Practice passages

• “Since you’re not going to tell me which pie is the best, I’m going to have to buy all of them to find out for myself.” 

  • The first phrase is the premise (indicated  by since), and the second is the conclusion.

• “For the reason that France is lowering its price for grain exports, we clearly need to lower ours to compete.” 

  • The first phrase is the premise (indicated by for the reason that), and the second is the conclusion (indicated  by clearly).