Rank 10 by frequency | 203 questions in corpus (4.5% of all questions)
An Identify the Conclusion question asks you to find the main point of an argument — the central claim that everything else in the stimulus is trying to support. The stimulus already contains the conclusion explicitly; your job is to distinguish it from the premises, sub-conclusions, background context, and opposing views that surround it. This type appears earliest in sections on average (position 9.9), reflecting how foundational the skill is — almost every other LR question type requires conclusion identification as a first step.
Identify the Conclusion is a descriptive question type: the conclusion is already in the stimulus, and you simply have to spot it. You are not inferring anything new, strengthening, weakening, or evaluating — you are locating the claim the author is trying to establish, then matching it to the answer choice that paraphrases it most accurately.
The stimulus is an argument with moving parts. It may open with background context or report what "most experts believe" or "it is commonly said." It then provides premises — facts, observations, or claims the author asks you to accept — flagged by words like because, since, for, after all, given that, as evidenced by. Finally it arrives at the conclusion: the claim that receives support but gives none to anything else.
Because the conclusion is explicit, the correct answer must be a faithful paraphrase — preserving the scope, force, and direction of the original claim without adding to it or subtracting from it. This is the only LR question type where the answer is purely a restatement of something already on the page.
Two tests reliably locate the main conclusion, even in arguments without obvious indicator words.
For any candidate sentence, ask: "Why does the author believe this?" If the answer is found in other statements in the stimulus, the candidate is a conclusion. Then ask: "Does this statement itself support any other statement in the stimulus?" If it does, it is a sub-conclusion. If it doesn't — if everything else supports it and it supports nothing further — it is the main conclusion.
When two statements both look like conclusions, put the word "therefore" between them in both possible orders. Only one order makes logical sense. The statement sitting in the therefore slot — the one being supported — is the main conclusion; the other is a premise or sub-conclusion.
A sub-conclusion (also called an intermediate conclusion) is a claim that both receives support AND provides support for a further claim. A main conclusion receives support but gives none. Sub-conclusions are LSAC's favorite trap on this question type: a therefore or thus often sits in front of the sub-conclusion — especially in the last sentence — while the real main conclusion appears earlier without any indicator word at all.
Identify the Conclusion questions appear in six structural variations. The stem wording is nearly identical across them; what changes is how the argument is built.
Variation 1 — Simple argument with indicator words. The conclusion is clearly marked with therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently, and the premises are marked with because, since, for, given that. Difficulty is low — the indicator words do the work. Stem: "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?"
Variation 2 — Argument without indicator words. No explicit markers at all; the conclusion has to be identified by logical flow alone. Medium difficulty — this is where the why/because test earns its keep.
Variation 3 — Sub-conclusion trap. The most common hard variation. The stimulus contains both a sub-conclusion and a main conclusion, and LSAC deliberately places the therefore or thus before the sub-conclusion, often in the last sentence. The main conclusion appears earlier without an indicator. Stem: "Which one of the following most accurately states the main point of the argument?"
Variation 4 — Conclusion in the first sentence. The author states the conclusion up front and then provides supporting reasons. The rest of the stimulus leans heavily on premise indicators (because, since, after all). Medium difficulty — test-takers habituated to looking at the end of the stimulus get tripped up.
Variation 5 — Context / other-people's-views setup. Opens with what others believe or what is commonly thought ("Most experts believe…" or "It is commonly said…"). The author then disagrees and states their own conclusion, which is often the opposite of the opening view. Medium-high difficulty — test-takers may mistake the reported view for the author's own. Stem: "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the conclusion of the argument as a whole?"
Variation 6 — Named-person conclusion. The argument is attributed to a specific speaker (an economist, a scientist, a politician). Low-medium difficulty. Stem: "Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the economist's argument?"
A consistent six-step routine handles every variation. The key is to find and predict the conclusion before looking at the answer choices — otherwise the trap answers will pull you off course.
Step 1 — Read the stimulus and separate factual context from the author's argument. If the opening sentence reports what others believe, flag it as background and watch for a pivot (but, however, yet) where the author's own view begins.
Step 2 — Find the conclusion. Use indicator words if present. If not, apply the why/because test: for any candidate conclusion, ask "Why does the author believe this?" If other sentences answer that question, it may be the conclusion. Then ask whether it itself supports anything else.
Step 3 — Distinguish sub-conclusions from the main conclusion. If two statements both look like conclusions, use the therefore test: place therefore between them in both orders. The order that makes logical sense tells you which one is being supported — that's the main conclusion.
Step 4 — Predict the answer before reading choices. Paraphrase the conclusion in your own words, preserving the scope and force exactly.
Step 5 — Match your prediction to the answer choices. Look for the synonymous restatement. The right answer is a paraphrase, not a verbatim copy — expect different words carrying the same meaning.
Step 6 — Eliminate the wrong answers by identifying them as premises, sub-conclusions, overstated or understated versions, or reversals of the logical relationship.
The correct answer is a direct paraphrase of the main conclusion — rarely verbatim. It uses synonymous language to restate what the author said while preserving three things exactly: the scope (how broadly the claim applies), the force (how strongly it's asserted — must, likely, could), and the direction (who or what implies what).
The correct answer does not add qualifiers, remove qualifiers, or shift the subject. It does not introduce any information not already in the stimulus. It has a one-to-one correspondence with a specific sentence in the argument, and all other statements in the stimulus either support that sentence or provide context for it.
Wrong answers on Identify the Conclusion come in a few predictable shapes. Recognizing the shape lets you eliminate the choice quickly instead of agonizing over whether it "sounds right."
Trap 1 — Premise restatement (the most common trap). The answer is a verbatim or close paraphrase of a supporting premise. It is true, it is in the stimulus, and it feels "relevant" — but it is not the conclusion. Defense: confirm the candidate receives support from other sentences rather than providing it.
Trap 2 — Sub-conclusion restatement. The answer restates an intermediate conclusion — a real conclusion, just not the main one. Often the most tempting wrong answer because a therefore may sit directly in front of it. Defense: the therefore test. The sub-conclusion will feel like it supports another claim; the main conclusion supports nothing.
Trap 3 — Overstated conclusion. Adds scope, force, or certainty beyond what the author actually claimed. If the author said "may" the trap answer says "must"; if the author spoke about "some cases" the trap says "all cases."
Trap 4 — Understated conclusion. Captures only part of what the author concluded, or weakens the force. Often easy to miss because it sounds cautious and reasonable.
Trap 5 — Reversed relationship. Takes the right terms but flips who or what implies what — a classic mirror-image distortion. Defense: verify the subject and object of the claim match the original exactly.
Trap 6 — Background or others' views as the author's position. Restates context from the opening of the stimulus — often the very view the author is rejecting. Defense: watch for the pivot word (but, however, yet) that separates the setup from the author's actual stance.
Trap 7 — Inference beyond the conclusion. A statement that would follow from the argument but is not what the author explicitly concluded. Defense: the answer must restate something on the page, not extend it.
Two design patterns are responsible for the most difficult Identify the Conclusion questions, and LSAC combines them to build the hardest versions.
Indicator word misdirection. LSAC places therefore, thus, or so in front of a sub-conclusion — often in the last sentence of the stimulus — so test-takers assume it is the main conclusion. The real main conclusion appears earlier, without any indicator word. The structural pattern premise + sub-conclusion (with therefore) + main conclusion (without indicator) is the hardest common layout on this type.
Trap statements. A strongly-worded opinion early in the stimulus feels like a conclusion but has no premise supporting it. The actual conclusion appears later with explicit support. Defense: always check that your candidate conclusion receives support from the rest of the stimulus; if nothing supports it, it is not the main conclusion — it may not even be part of the argument.
Identify the Conclusion shares surface features with several other LR types. Keeping the distinctions clear prevents you from applying the wrong strategy.
vs. Must Be True. Must Be True asks what can be inferred from the stimulus — a new proposition that follows from the given facts. Identify the Conclusion asks what the author has already concluded in the stimulus. The conclusion is explicit; the inference is not.
vs. Identify the Role. Role questions ask about the function of a specific quoted statement. Identify the Conclusion asks for the main point of the whole argument. If the target sentence happens to be the main conclusion, a Role answer will say so — but Role is about structural function, not identity.
vs. Sufficient Assumption. Sufficient Assumption asks what claim, if added to the premises, would prove the conclusion. Identify the Conclusion just asks what the conclusion IS. Sufficient Assumption extends the argument; Identify the Conclusion describes it.
Every version of Identify the Conclusion uses one of these stems. Recognizing them instantly tells you to switch into paraphrase mode: find the main point first, predict its wording, then match.