Volume II: Logical Reasoning · Chapter 9
The job: Read It. Find the author’s main conclusion; the right answer is a faithful paraphrase of it.
Frequency: roughly 1 to 2 per section. Difficulty: low to medium.
A Main Conclusion question hands you an argument and asks you for one thing: the author’s main point. The right answer restates that point in different words. You are not asked to evaluate the argument, find its assumption, or name its flaw. You are asked only to identify what the author is ultimately trying to prove.
This is a Read It job (see Chapter 7). You accept the stimulus as true, you bring nothing from outside, and the credited answer is something the text already gives you. In that sense it is a cousin of Must Be True (Chapter 8). But there is one difference that changes how you read. A Must Be True stimulus is usually a fact set. A Main Conclusion stimulus is always an argument. There is always a conclusion sitting in there to be found, which means there is always premise material trying to hide it.
That is the whole challenge. If the conclusion were always the last sentence and always flagged with therefore, this would be the easiest question on the test. The test makers know that, so they bury the conclusion, strip the indicator words, wrap the real point in a pronoun, and surround it with premises and intermediate conclusions that look like the main point but are not. Your job is to cut through all of that and put your finger on the single claim everything else is built to support.
Everything you need was taught in Chapter 2 (The Anatomy of an Argument). This chapter is Chapter 2 applied under pressure, on the exact question type that tests it most directly.
The stem names the conclusion outright. Look for:
The word conclusion, main point, or overall conclusion is the tell. The phrase most accurately expresses signals that the answer will be a paraphrase, not a quote.
Look-alikes to keep separate:
There is a conclusion in here somewhere, so find the seam between what the author treats as given (premises) and what the author is arguing for (the conclusion, the opinion). The conclusion is the claim that is up for debate: a judgment, a prediction, a recommendation, an interpretation. Premises are the settled facts offered to back it up. Everyday version: “the car has 120,000 miles and the brakes are worn, so it is not worth buying.” The mileage and the brakes are settled facts nobody disputes, while “it is not worth buying” is the debatable opinion, and that opinion is the conclusion.
This is the signature move, and all three major guides teach it independently. Take the claims that look like candidates for the conclusion. Provisionally arrange two of them as “X, therefore Y,” and read it aloud in your head. The arrangement that makes sense puts the conclusion in the Y slot. Then flip it: “Y, therefore X.” If that version is nonsense, you have confirmed which claim is doing the supporting and which is being supported.
Support flows one direction only. Premises hold up the conclusion; the conclusion never holds up the premises. The Therefore Test forces that direction into the open, and only one direction will sound right.
The conclusion can sit anywhere. The reflex to grab the final line is exactly the reflex the test punishes. Conclusions get placed at the start (premises follow to support them), and, most dangerously, in the middle (a common pattern: opposing view first, then the author’s conclusion, then the premises that back it up). When the conclusion is buried in the middle, the last sentence is usually a premise, and grabbing it gives you the most tempting wrong answer on the page.
An argument can contain more than one conclusion. An intermediate conclusion (also called a subsidiary conclusion) is a claim that is supported by a premise and then goes on to support a further claim. The chain looks like this:
Premise → Intermediate Conclusion → Main Conclusion
Use the what-supports-what test. The main conclusion is the claim that is supported by other claims but supports nothing else in the argument. If a claim you like turns around and props up a later claim, it is intermediate, and the later claim is your answer. Ask of each candidate: does anything in the argument rest on this? If yes, keep climbing.
A conclusion indicator like thus, so, or therefore marks a conclusion. It does not promise the main one. Test makers attach therefore to an intermediate conclusion precisely to bait you. When you see the indicator, you have found a conclusion; you have not yet proven it is final. Re-apply the Therefore Test to confirm nothing later depends on it.
The conclusion is often stated with a pronoun or pointer word (this, that, these, such, it) that borrows its meaning from an earlier sentence. “That would be a mistake” is a conclusion, but it is empty until you replace “That” with the specific thing being called a mistake. The credited answer will state the unpacked, full version, never the bare pronoun. Substitute the real meaning before you go to the choices.
State the main conclusion in your own words. Then find the answer that says the same thing with the same scope and the same strength. The right answer rewores the conclusion; it does not quote it. Hold the line on degree words: if the author concluded the plan is “unlikely to succeed,” an answer saying it “will fail” is too strong and dies.
Stimulus: Several commentators have claimed that the city’s new public-transit subsidy will reduce traffic congestion downtown. This is doubtful. The subsidy lowers fares only on the suburban rail lines, and surveys show that downtown congestion is caused almost entirely by drivers who live within the downtown core itself. Those drivers rarely use the rail lines at all. The subsidy will therefore leave the people responsible for most downtown traffic with no new reason to change how they travel.
Stem: Which one of the following most accurately expresses the main conclusion of the argument?
(A) The city’s new transit subsidy will reduce traffic congestion downtown.
(B) The subsidy lowers fares only on the suburban rail lines and not on routes serving the downtown core.
(C) Drivers who live within the downtown core are responsible for most downtown traffic congestion.
(D) It is doubtful that the city’s new transit subsidy will reduce downtown traffic congestion.
(E) The transit subsidy gives the drivers responsible for most downtown traffic no new reason to change how they travel.
Step 1, fact versus opinion. The author is clearly taking a side. The opinion in here is the rejection of the commentators’ claim. The facts are the details about which fares dropped and who causes the congestion.
Step 2 and 3, find the conclusion; do not grab the last sentence. The last sentence carries therefore, which makes it the obvious bait. But run the what-supports-what test. The final sentence (core drivers get no new reason to change) is itself supported by the earlier facts: fares only fell on suburban rail, and core drivers do not use the rail. So that sentence is supported. Does anything in the argument rest on it? Yes. It is the reason to believe the author’s real claim, stated back near the top: “This is doubtful.”
Step 4 and 6, intermediate versus main, and borrowed language. “This is doubtful” is borrowed language. Unpacked, “This” refers to the commentators’ claim that the subsidy will reduce congestion, so the author’s claim is: it is doubtful that the subsidy will reduce downtown congestion. Now test the chain:
So the therefore sentence is the intermediate conclusion, and the buried claim near the top is the main conclusion. The structure is Premises → Intermediate Conclusion (the therefore sentence) → Main Conclusion (it is doubtful the subsidy will reduce congestion). The main conclusion is supported but supports nothing further. That is the answer.
Step 7, match. Prephrase: the author’s point is that the subsidy probably will not reduce downtown congestion. That is (D).
Why each wrong answer fails:
For each, identify the main conclusion, then pick the answer that paraphrases it. Answers and explanations follow in the next section. Try each cold first.
1. Many parents believe that earlier bedtimes improve children’s school performance. But a recent study found that students who went to bed earlier performed no better on standardized tests than students who went to bed late. Bedtime, it seems, has little effect on test scores.
Which one most accurately expresses the main conclusion?
(A) Many parents believe earlier bedtimes improve school performance.
(B) A recent study examined the relationship between bedtime and test scores.
(C) Students who went to bed earlier did no better on standardized tests than those who went to bed late.
(D) Bedtime appears to have little effect on standardized test scores.
(E) Parents should not enforce earlier bedtimes for their children.
2. The council’s plan to repave Elm Street will cost far more than its supporters admit. The plan relies on a contractor’s estimate that assumes no rise in asphalt prices. But asphalt prices have climbed every year for the past five years and are expected to keep climbing. The estimate is therefore almost certainly too low.
Which one most accurately expresses the main conclusion?
(A) Asphalt prices have risen every year for the past five years.
(B) The contractor’s estimate assumes that asphalt prices will not rise.
(C) The contractor’s estimate of the plan’s cost is almost certainly too low.
(D) The council’s plan to repave Elm Street will cost more than its supporters admit.
(E) The council should reject the plan to repave Elm Street.
3. Critics of the museum’s new wing say it clashes with the building’s historic facade. They have a point about the contrast in materials. Even so, the new wing has doubled the space available for exhibitions and drawn record crowds. The wing was, on balance, a worthwhile addition.
Which one most accurately expresses the main conclusion?
(A) The new wing clashes with the building’s historic facade.
(B) Critics are correct that the new wing’s materials contrast with the old facade.
(C) The new wing has doubled the museum’s exhibition space.
(D) The new wing has drawn record crowds to the museum.
(E) On balance, the new wing was a worthwhile addition to the museum.
1. Answer: (D). The structure is: opposing belief (parents think bedtime matters), premise (the study found no difference), conclusion (bedtime has little effect). The conclusion is the last sentence here, but confirm it with the what-supports-what test: the study finding supports “bedtime has little effect,” and nothing rests on the bedtime claim in turn, so it is the main conclusion. (A) is the opposing view the author rejects. (B) is background about the study. (C) is the premise, the study’s finding, offered as support. (E) is a recommendation the author never makes; it goes beyond the stated point about test scores (wrong scope, and unstated).
2. Answer: (D). This one buries the main conclusion in the first sentence. The last sentence carries therefore (“the estimate is almost certainly too low”), which is the fake-out. Run the chain: the price facts support “the estimate is too low,” and “the estimate is too low” in turn supports “the plan will cost more than supporters admit.” So the therefore sentence in (C) is the intermediate conclusion, and the main conclusion is the opening claim, (D), which is supported but supports nothing else. (A) and (B) are premises. (E) is a recommendation the author never makes (unstated, wrong scope).
3. Answer: (E). The pattern is: opposing view (critics say it clashes), a concession (they have a point about materials), then a pivot with “Even so” to the author’s own claim. The main conclusion is the final sentence: on balance, the wing was worthwhile. Confirm: the space and crowd facts support it, and nothing rests on it further. (A) is the critics’ view, which the author argues past. (B) is the concession, a point the author grants to the other side but is not arguing for; this is the secondary-point trap. (C) and (D) are premises offered as support for the worthwhile-addition claim.
Put it to work: drill Main Point questions in the practice platform, free during early access, with every answer choice explained.
