Conclusion vs. Subconclusion

[nazu.s.shaikh]

I've found that in some stimulus there are two conclusions. How do you point out the primary conclusion from the subsidiary?

[ManhattanPrepLSAT2]

When there are two conclusions in the stimulus, it's generally going to be one of two situations:

Two somewhat opposing conclusions (not very common -- they appear in such Q types as "Identify the Disagreement")

and

Two conclusions, one of which is meant to support the other. I believe this is the situation you are asking about --

The best way to think about it is as a chain of sequential consequences -- which conclusion leads you to the other, and what is the ultimate result?

One basic strategy for accomplishing this is to use the "therefore" test. Take this simple example:

"The new design is better than the old design. I expect sales to increase."

Both are opinions -- which is the conclusion? You probably know it already, but if you weren't sure, you could put the word "therefore" in between the two phrases and see which sequence makes more sense:

"I expect sales to increase THEREFORE the new design is better than the old design" doesn't make logical sense.

"The new design is better than the old design THEREFORE I expect sales to increase" makes perfect sense. So, you want to treat "I expect sales to increase" as your ultimate conclusion.

There are some more subtle issues, which we discuss in our strategy guides and classes, involved as well, but the "therefore" test is generally all you need for most of these situations.