LSAT Premise vs. Conclusion Indicator Words: The Complete List

Every LSAT Logical Reasoning question gives you a stimulus — a short argument or set of facts. Before you can answer the question, you need to know which sentence is the conclusion (the claim being argued for) and which sentences are premises (the evidence or reasons supporting that claim).

Indicator words are the fastest route to that identification. They are functional words and phrases that signal a sentence's role in the argument. Conclusion indicators announce the conclusion; premise indicators announce the evidence.

Not every LSAT stimulus contains indicator words, and some contain misleading ones. But knowing the full list eliminates uncertainty on a large portion of questions and makes argument-mapping faster on every question.

These words or phrases signal that what follows is the argument's conclusion — the main claim the author is trying to establish:

'Therefore,' 'thus,' 'so,' 'hence,' 'consequently,' 'as a result,' 'it follows that,' 'we can conclude that,' 'this shows that,' 'this suggests that,' 'this demonstrates that,' 'for this reason,' 'which means that,' 'clearly,' 'obviously,' 'must be,' 'must have been.'

When you see any of these mid-stimulus, the sentence that follows them is almost certainly the conclusion. Bracket it, confirm it makes logical sense as the conclusion (the other sentences provide reasons to believe it), and proceed.

Note: 'clearly' and 'obviously' are confidence signals more than formal conclusion markers — the author asserts something is self-evident. The LSAT often uses them to introduce a conclusion that is, in fact, not obvious and that the question will challenge you to evaluate.

These words or phrases signal that what follows is evidence, a reason, or a supporting fact for the conclusion:

'Because,' 'since,' 'for,' 'given that,' 'as,' 'in light of,' 'after all,' 'due to,' 'on the grounds that,' 'for the reason that,' 'as evidenced by,' 'the reason is that,' 'in that,' 'as shown by,' 'based on,' 'in view of the fact that.'

When you see these, the sentence that follows is a premise — one of the reasons being offered to support the conclusion.

Practical tip: 'because' is the most reliable premise indicator on the LSAT. If a sentence starts with 'because' or contains 'because' mid-sentence, what follows the 'because' is a premise, and what precedes it is typically a conclusion or a supporting claim.

'Since' can be either a premise indicator ('Since the study used a large sample size, its results are more reliable') or a temporal marker ('Since the policy was introduced, crime rates have dropped'). Context disambiguates — is it introducing a reason or describing a time relationship?

'As' has the same dual function. 'As the data shows' introduces a premise; 'as time went on' is temporal.

'For' can introduce a premise ('This policy is sound, for it has been tested in three cities') or be part of a purpose clause ('The fund exists for humanitarian aid'). When 'for' introduces a complete clause that provides a reason, it is a premise indicator.

When a word could be either, read the full sentence and ask: is this providing a reason for something, or is it describing a relationship in time or purpose? If it is providing a reason, treat it as a premise indicator.

Some LSAT stimuli contain no indicator words at all. For these, use structural reasoning: the conclusion is the sentence the other sentences are designed to support. Ask yourself — which sentence is the author trying to convince you of? The other sentences are there to do the convincing.

The 'why' test: take each sentence and ask whether you can follow it with 'because [the other sentences].' The sentence that successfully plays the role of the thing being justified — the 'thing' being explained by 'because' — is the conclusion.

The 'therefore' insertion test: try inserting 'therefore' before each sentence in turn. In which position does 'therefore' make the argument read most naturally and logically? That sentence is likely the conclusion.

Both tests work on the same principle: premises exist to support the conclusion, so the conclusion is the one claim that the other sentences are pointing toward.

Some LSAT stimuli contain more than two layers: a main conclusion supported by an intermediate conclusion, which is itself supported by background premises. The intermediate conclusion acts as both a conclusion (relative to the premises below it) and a premise (relative to the main conclusion above it).

Example: 'The company's production costs have dropped 30% this year. Therefore, its profit margin has improved. We can thus expect the stock price to rise.'

Intermediate conclusion: 'profit margin has improved' — conclusion relative to 'production costs dropped,' premise relative to 'stock price will rise.'

Main conclusion: 'stock price will rise.'

On Main Point questions, the correct answer identifies the main conclusion — the final destination of the argument — not the intermediate step. On Assumption and Weaken questions, the gap can exist between any two levels. Know the full structure before answering.