How to Find the Conclusion in an LSAT Argument

The conclusion of an LSAT argument is the claim the author wants you to accept. Everything else in the stimulus is evidence, background, or a counterpoint. Start by asking "what is the author trying to convince me of?" and confirm with the direction of support: premises back up the conclusion, never the other way around.

How to find the conclusion in an LSAT argument

Finding the conclusion is the first move in almost every Logical Reasoning question type: strengthen, weaken, flaw, assumption, method of reasoning, and main point questions all start here. If you misidentify the conclusion, every step after it goes wrong. Here is the 4-step method, in order:

1. Ask: what is the author trying to convince me of? This is the single most reliable test. The conclusion is the author's opinion, recommendation, or prediction, the one claim that would be most controversial if someone disagreed with it.
2. Check indicator words. Words like "therefore," "thus," "hence," "so," and "consequently" usually mark the conclusion. (More on these, and the liars among them, below.)
3. Follow the direction of support. Premises explain or justify; the conclusion is explained or justified. Ask of each sentence: "does this sentence support the others, or do the others support it?" The sentence everything else points toward is the conclusion.
4. Run the "therefore" test. Mentally insert "therefore" before each candidate sentence. The one where "therefore" sounds like the natural wrap-up of the argument is your conclusion.

Conclusion indicator words, and the ones that lie

Indicator words are a fast first pass, but they are not a guarantee. The LSAT regularly omits them or uses them in misleading ways. Memorize the two lists, then always confirm with the direction of support:

The biggest liar is "since." It can mean "because" (marking a premise) or be purely temporal ("since 2019..."), where it marks neither. "So" can also appear mid-argument to restate an opinion that later gets challenged. Never let a single word overrule steps 1 and 3 of the method.

Watch out for subconclusions

Many stimuli contain an intermediate conclusion (subconclusion): a claim that is supported by earlier premises and then used as evidence for the main conclusion. Think of the argument as a chain: the main conclusion is the top of the chain, supported by everything and supporting nothing further.

Example: "The sidewalks are wet, so it must have rained last night. And any rain last night means the riverside path will be flooded. Therefore, we should take the hill route."

• "The sidewalks are wet": premise (background fact)
• "It must have rained last night": subconclusion (supported by the wet sidewalks, then used as support)
• "Any rain last night means the riverside path will be flooded": premise (a general rule)
• "We should take the hill route": main conclusion (the recommendation everything builds toward)

This distinction matters constantly: strengthen and weaken questions usually target the main conclusion, while our guide to LSAT flaw questions shows how confusing a subconclusion for the main claim produces wrong answers.

The "however" pivot: counterpoints are not the author's view

A classic LSAT structure: the author quotes or concedes an opposing view, then pivots to their own conclusion. The pivot usually comes right after "but," "however," "yet," or "although":

Example: "Many residents complain that downtown traffic has gotten worse. However, the city's sensors show that average travel times have actually decreased. Thus, the complaints are exaggerated."

The first sentence is the opposing view, not the conclusion. The author mentions it only to knock it down. If you grabbed the first opinion in the stimulus as the conclusion, you'd have the argument exactly backwards. The general rule: when you see a pivot word, the author's real claim is usually on the far side of the pivot.

Two worked examples

Example 1: indicators present

"Some nutritionists argue that breakfast is the most important meal of the day. But that advice ignores shift workers, for whom a large breakfast means eating immediately before sleep, which disrupts rest. Since adequate rest affects health more than any single meal, shift workers should not follow the standard breakfast advice."

• "Some nutritionists argue...": opposing view (counterpoint, not the author's claim)
• "that advice ignores shift workers": author's pushback (supported by the following sentences)
• "a large breakfast means eating before sleep, which disrupts rest" + "rest affects health more than any single meal": premises (the evidence)
• "Shift workers should not follow the standard breakfast advice": conclusion (the recommendation everything supports; "should" + supported by all the rest)

Example 2: no indicators at all

"The city council voted to widen the river bridge. Construction will take at least two years. Traffic congestion on the current bridge costs commuters an estimated hour a day. A wider bridge would relieve that congestion. The council made the right call."

• First four sentences: all premises or background (the vote, the timeline, the congestion problem, the expected fix)
• "The council made the right call": conclusion. No indicator word appears, but the "therefore" test works: therefore, the council made the right call is clearly the wrap-up, and it's the one claim you'd argue about.

The traps that cost test-takers points

• The conclusion is not always last. The LSAT deliberately leads with conclusions, buries them mid-paragraph, and places them right after a "however" pivot. Position means nothing; direction of support means everything.
• Opinions that aren't the author's. "Critics claim," "some argue," "it is often said": quoted views are scenery, not the conclusion. The author's claim is the one they defend.
• Background facts. Context-setting sentences ("The LSAT is scored from 120 to 180") sound important but support nothing. The removal test helps: delete the sentence: if the argument loses no support, it was background.
• Predictions stated as facts. "The new policy will fail" is an opinion even when stated flatly. Flag any prediction as a likely conclusion.

Why this skill matters for your score

Finding the conclusion is the gateway to the hardest LR question types. Once you've identified the main claim, you can:

• Spot the gap between evidence and claim: the core move in strengthen and weaken questions and flaw questions
• Name the unstated assumption the argument depends on: see necessary vs. sufficient assumptions
• Map the full argument structure once the stem has named the type: overviewed in our Logical Reasoning question types guide

Drill it as a standalone skill first: read any argument and underline the conclusion before looking at the question. Within a few dozen repetitions, the direction of support becomes visible on your first read.