LSAT Intermediate Conclusions: How to Spot Them

An intermediate conclusion is a claim that does two jobs at once: it is supported by premises, and it then supports the main conclusion. If a claim that looks like a conclusion is itself used to argue for something else, it is not the main point. It is a stepping stone, and the main conclusion is the claim that receives support but gives none.

What is an intermediate conclusion on the LSAT?

Most Logical Reasoning stimuli are short arguments: premises give reasons, and a conclusion is the claim those reasons are meant to establish. Some arguments add a middle layer. A premise supports a first conclusion, and that first conclusion then supports the final one. The middle claim is the intermediate conclusion, also called a subsidiary conclusion.

Think of the argument as a chain:

Premise → intermediate conclusion → main conclusion.

Every link matters, because LSAT questions test the links separately. A main point question wants the end of the chain. A role question may ask what job the middle link does. A flaw question may break one link while leaving the other intact. If you collapse the chain into one flat conclusion, you will answer the wrong question.

The two-way test: the only test you need

Indicator words help, but they are not reliable on their own: the LSAT regularly puts a conclusion word like “therefore” in front of an intermediate conclusion, or leaves indicators out entirely. Use the two-way test instead. For each candidate conclusion, ask two questions:

1. Is it supported? Do other statements in the stimulus give reasons for it? If yes, it is a conclusion of some kind, not a premise.
2. Does it support something else? Is it then used as a reason for a further claim? If yes, it is intermediate. If no, it is the main conclusion.

That gives you a clean decision rule:

A handy shortcut is the “why” test. Pick two claims you think could be the main conclusion and ask “why?” about each. The claim whose “why” is answered by the other claim is the supported one. Keep walking up the chain until you reach a claim that nothing else supports: that is the main conclusion. Our guide to finding the conclusion covers the same test in more detail, and our indicator words guide covers the words that usually signal each role.

Worked example: a two-tier argument

Read this original argument and label each sentence before reading on:

“Towns that keep their libraries open in the evening see higher teen reading scores than comparable towns that do not. Extending evening hours would therefore raise reading scores in our town. So the town council should fund extended evening library hours.”

• Sentence 1 is a premise. It is evidence, and nothing in the stimulus supports it. It supports sentence 2.
• Sentence 2 is the intermediate conclusion. It is supported by sentence 1 (“therefore” is the giveaway here), and it is then used as the reason for sentence 3.
• Sentence 3 is the main conclusion. Everything points toward it, and it supports nothing further. It is also the only sentence that says what should be done.

Notice the trap: sentence 2 sounds like a conclusion, and it is one. But a main point question asking for the author’s main point wants sentence 3, not sentence 2. Picking the intermediate conclusion is the single most common error on two-tier arguments.

Four patterns where intermediate conclusions hide

1. Recommendation arguments

The most common pattern: evidence leads to a prediction, and the prediction leads to a recommendation. “This policy worked elsewhere, so it would work here, so we should adopt it.” The prediction is intermediate; the recommendation is main.

2. Causal chains

One event causes another, which causes a third. “The new road will cut commute times, which will attract more businesses, so the town’s tax revenue will rise.” The middle claims are intermediate conclusions, each supported by the last and supporting the next.

3. Concession and pivot

The author grants a point, then pivots: “It is true that the plan is expensive. But it will also cut long-term costs, so it is worth funding.” The cost-cutting claim is often an intermediate conclusion on the way to the funding recommendation.

4. Principle applied to a case

A general principle plus a fact yields a verdict about a specific case, and that verdict then supports a recommendation. The verdict is intermediate; the recommendation is main.

Where the trap shows up by question type

• Main point questions: the intermediate conclusion is the most attractive wrong answer. If your pick supports another claim in the stimulus, it is not the main point.
• Role questions: the correct answer for an intermediate conclusion usually says it is a conclusion supported by evidence and used to support the main conclusion. Answers that call it the main conclusion, or a mere premise, are wrong.
• Flaw questions: check which link is broken. An argument can have a solid first link and a broken second link, or the reverse. An answer that attacks the wrong link does not describe the flaw.
• Strengthen and weaken questions: support or damage must reach the main conclusion. Evidence that only shores up the intermediate conclusion may leave the final step untouched.

A 3-step routine for two-conclusion arguments

1. Label every sentence. For each sentence, write P (premise), IC (intermediate conclusion), or MC (main conclusion). Do this before looking at the question stem’s answer choices.
2. Run the two-way test on any sentence with a conclusion word. “Therefore,” “thus,” and “so” mark conclusions, but only the support test tells you whether the conclusion is intermediate or main.
3. Check your main conclusion. Before answering, confirm it supports nothing else in the stimulus. If it does, you have found an intermediate conclusion and need to keep walking up the chain.

Try it on the worked example above, then try it on a fresh argument: “Regular exercise improves concentration. Students who exercise before studying therefore retain more of what they read. Schools should thus schedule physical education before morning classes.” The retention claim is the intermediate conclusion; the scheduling recommendation is the main point.

Two-tier arguments reward patience, not speed. Label the chain first, and the question types that punish flat reading, main point, role, and flaw, get much easier. For the full map of the section, see our Logical Reasoning question types guide.