How to Find the Conclusion in an LSAT Logical Reasoning Question

Almost every LSAT Logical Reasoning question depends on correctly identifying the conclusion. If you misidentify it, you are answering a different question than the one on the page — and every answer choice will feel wrong for reasons you cannot pinpoint.

The conclusion is the author's destination: the claim they want you to accept. Every other sentence in the stimulus either supports that claim, provides background, or sets up a contrast.

The good news is that finding the conclusion is a learnable skill. It does not require special intuition. It requires a clear method.

The LSAT often signals conclusions with indicator words: therefore, thus, so, hence, consequently, for this reason, it follows that, this shows that, as a result.

When you see one of these words, the claim that follows it is almost certainly the conclusion.

Example: "Traffic congestion has increased near the new shopping center. Therefore, the city should add a new turning lane on Route 9."

"Therefore" points directly to the conclusion: the city should add a turning lane.

But here is the problem: indicator words are not always present. The LSAT frequently omits them. The conclusion might appear first. It might appear last. It might be buried in the middle. And occasionally a word like "since" will appear — which is a premise indicator, not a conclusion indicator.

Indicator words are a useful first check, not a reliable crutch.

When indicator words are missing or ambiguous, use this method: ask which sentence is supported by the other sentences.

The conclusion receives support. The premises provide support.

Read the stimulus and try to find two sentences where one gives a reason for believing the other. The claim being supported is the conclusion. The claim doing the supporting is the premise.

Example: "Students who kept error logs improved more on retakes than students who did not. Every student preparing for a high-stakes exam should keep an error log."

Which sentence is supported by the other? The second sentence is the recommendation the first sentence supports.

Conclusion: Every student preparing for a high-stakes exam should keep an error log.

Premise: Students who kept error logs improved more on retakes.

A quick mental test: insert the word "therefore" between each pair of sentences and see which placement makes logical sense.

"Students who kept error logs improved more. Therefore, every student should keep an error log." — This works. The first sentence gives a reason to believe the second.

"Every student should keep an error log. Therefore, students who kept error logs improved more." — This does not work. The recommendation does not logically produce the observation.

Whichever direction makes sense is the correct one. The premise supports the conclusion. Not the other way around.

Use this test when you are unsure. It takes only a few seconds and it almost always clarifies the structure.

The LSAT deliberately places conclusions in different positions to prevent students from always reading the last sentence as the conclusion.

Conclusion at the start: "The city council should reject the new zoning proposal. The proposal would increase traffic. It would also reduce tax revenue over the long term." The conclusion comes first. The two reasons follow.

Conclusion in the middle: "Traffic near schools has increased significantly. The city should therefore add crosswalks at major intersections near schools. Studies show that crosswalks reduce pedestrian accidents by nearly 30 percent." The conclusion sits in the second sentence.

Conclusion at the end: "Museum attendance fell last year. Admission prices increased by 15 percent during that period. So the price increase likely contributed to the attendance drop." The conclusion is last.

Always read the full stimulus before deciding which sentence is the conclusion.

Some stimuli contain a subsidiary conclusion — a claim that is both supported by evidence and then used to support the main conclusion.

Example: "Students who study with structured flashcards remember more vocabulary. So structured flashcards improve long-term retention. Therefore, language learners should incorporate structured flashcards into their daily practice."

"Structured flashcards improve long-term retention" is supported by the first sentence. But it also supports the final recommendation. It is a subsidiary conclusion — sometimes called an intermediate conclusion.

The main conclusion is the final recommendation. The subsidiary conclusion sits in the middle.

If a question asks for the main conclusion and you pick the subsidiary conclusion, you will be wrong. The distinction matters.

Picking the most interesting sentence. Interesting is not the same as being the conclusion. Background facts and colorful details are often just context.

Picking the first sentence automatically. The LSAT knows you tend to read the first sentence as most important. Conclusions often appear elsewhere.

Picking a premise that sounds strong. A strong, definitive premise can feel like a conclusion. Ask: is this sentence being used to support something else? If yes, it is a premise.

Confusing a subsidiary conclusion with the main conclusion. If a sentence is both supported and used to support the final claim, it is a stepping stone — not the destination.

Not reading the full stimulus before deciding. The conclusion must be evaluated against all the other sentences.

Q: Can a stimulus have no conclusion? On LSAT Logical Reasoning, every argument-based stimulus has a conclusion. If it seems like there is no conclusion, you may be misidentifying a premise as the conclusion or vice versa.

Q: Is the conclusion always what the author believes? Usually yes — the conclusion is the author's main point. But some stimuli present someone else's argument for the author to critique. In that case, the conclusion may be the other person's claim, not the author's.

Q: What if two sentences could both be the conclusion? Apply the "therefore" test to each. The sentence that logically receives support from the other is the conclusion. If both could receive support from each other, re-read more carefully — one will be more central.

Q: Does every question require me to find the conclusion? Most Logical Reasoning questions require you to know the conclusion. Even question types that do not explicitly ask for it — like weaken, strengthen, or flaw — depend on your knowing what the argument is trying to prove.

Identifying the conclusion is not just a skill for "main conclusion" questions. It is the foundation of every Logical Reasoning question type — flaw, assumption, strengthen, weaken, and more.

Verbloom's practice questions include explanations that break down each argument's structure: what is the evidence, what is the conclusion, and where is the gap. This kind of structural feedback is what actually builds the skill.

Try a free practice session at verbloom.dev.