Finding the Conclusion on the GMAT

Lots of students can spot the conclusion in Critical Reasoning (CR) questions when they see keywords like “Thus” or “Therefore.” But when those helpful signposts are missing, identifying the main point can trip them up. Some even assume the conclusion is always the last sentence, which is a common mistake. Remember, CR arguments don’t always follow a “conclusion first, then reasons” structure; sometimes, it’s the other way around. This guide will show you how to nail down the conclusion in CR questions that don’t give you explicit keywords.

Related：Once you’ve mastered finding the conclusion, apply these analytical skills to more complex argument structure questions, like those found when tackling boldface questions on the GMAT.

Related：Accurately finding the conclusion on the GMAT is fundamental, as misidentification is one of the most common pitfalls in Critical Reasoning questions.

Two key principles to keep in mind:

1. A Conclusion is Always an “Inference”

This means sentences stating objective facts – like survey results, experimental data, or simple event descriptions – aren’t conclusions. GMAT conclusions usually fall into one of these three patterns:

• (1) Stating a Cause-and-Effect Relationship

  Example: Clearly, the very insincerity that people decry shows that our government is functioning well.

• (2) Proposing a Solution to Achieve a Goal

  Example: Therefore, we can help reduce the total amount of pollution emitted by cars in this country by highlighting this advantage of hybrid cars.

• (3) Evaluating the Merits of Others’ Ideas

  Example: Although the school would receive financial benefits if it had soft drink vending machines in the cafeteria, we should not allow them.

2. A Conclusion is the “Endpoint of an Inference”

What does that mean? It means the other sentences in the argument (the premises or facts) can lead *to* the conclusion, but the conclusion itself doesn’t lead to any other sentence. The Official Guide (OG) puts it this way:

Identify the conclusion. The conclusion does not necessarily come at the end of the text; it may come somewhere in the middle or even at the beginning. Be alert to clues in the text that an argument follows logically from another statement or statements in the text.

Let’s look at an example from a Bold Face question: Public health expert: Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive. In addition to irritating the majority who already behave responsibly, it may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious. And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.

Here are the core pieces of the argument:

1. Increasing the urgency of a public health message may be counterproductive.
2. In addition to irritating the majority who already behave responsibly,
3. it may undermine all government pronouncements on health by convincing people that such messages are overly cautious.
4. And there is no reason to believe that those who ignore measured voices will listen to shouting.

When faced with an argument lacking clear connective words indicating relationships, you should test which statement can logically lead to another. First, eliminate sentences that state objective facts. In this particular example, all four sentences are inferences, not facts, so we keep them all. Important note: The conclusion cannot logically lead to any other statement. Instead, other statements logically lead to the conclusion, step by step. Therefore, when comparing two sentences, the one that is led to by the other must be compared with the next sentence, similar to a “wrestling match.”

1. vs. 2.
Does statement 1 (“this policy is counterproductive”) lead to statement 2 (“it irritates the majority who behave responsibly”)? Or does statement 2 lead to statement 1? Clearly, statement 2 supports statement 1. That means 2 cannot be the conclusion. Now, let’s compare 1 with 3.

1. vs. 3.
Does statement 1 (“this policy is counterproductive”) lead to statement 3 (“people will think the messages are overly cautious, thus undermining their effectiveness”)? Or does statement 3 lead to statement 1? Logically, statement 3 supports statement 1. So, 3 isn’t the conclusion either.

1. vs. 4.
Does statement 1 (“this policy is counterproductive”) lead to statement 4 (“the more urgent message won’t be heard by more people”)? Or does statement 4 lead to statement 1? Statement 4 supports statement 1. Therefore, the conclusion must be statement 1.

Conclusion

When you face CR questions without obvious conclusion keywords, follow these steps:

• First, toss out any statements that are just stating objective facts.
• Next, take the remaining statements and compare them in pairs. Ask yourself which statement supports which. The one that *supports* another statement can’t be the conclusion.
• Keep comparing the potential conclusion with the next statement until you find the main point that all the others support.

This process may seem complex, but with practice, it will become an intuitive response.