Logical Reasoning Foundations: Finding the Main Conclusion in Messy Writing

Why “messy writing” hides the main conclusion

Outside textbooks, arguments rarely arrive as neat “premise 1, premise 2, therefore…” packages. Real writing mixes: background facts, emotional framing, side complaints, examples, predictions, and action requests. Your job is to separate what is support from what is supported, and then decide which supported claim is the author’s main point.

A common trap is to pick the most dramatic sentence, the first sentence, or the last sentence. Another trap is to mistake a sub-conclusion (a claim supported by reasons that then supports something else) for the overall conclusion.

What you are looking for

• Main conclusion: the central claim the author ultimately wants you to accept (often tied to what should be believed, done, approved, rejected, funded, changed).
• Subsidiary conclusion: an intermediate “therefore” claim that is supported, but mainly functions to support the main conclusion.
• Context/background: information that sets the scene but is not offered as support (it may be true and relevant, but it is not doing argumentative work).
• Side points: extra claims that may be interesting but do not support the main conclusion (or support a different conclusion).

A step-by-step method for finding the main conclusion

Step 1: List all claims (one per line)

Rewrite the passage as a list of claims. Keep them short and literal. If a sentence contains two claims, split it. If a claim is vague (“this is a disaster”), rewrite it in a more precise way while staying faithful (“the policy will cause delays and higher costs”).

Tip: Include recommendations (“we should…”) and evaluations (“this is unfair…”) as claims. They are often conclusions.

Step 2: Ask: what is being supported?

Look for claims that have other claims pointing toward them. A supported claim is a candidate conclusion. If multiple claims are supported, you may have sub-conclusions plus a main conclusion.

Continue in our app.

• Listen to the audio with the screen off.
• Earn a certificate upon completion.
• Over 5000 courses for you to explore!

Or continue reading below...

Download the app

Diagnostic questions:

• If the author could only keep one claim, which one would they keep?
• Which claim would make the rest of the passage “make sense” as support?
• Which claim is most “action-guiding” (approve, reject, change, vote, buy, hire, postpone)?

Step 3: Locate the supporting reasons

For each candidate conclusion, identify which other claims are offered as reasons for it. Draw quick arrows mentally (or on paper): reason → claim supported. If a claim has no arrows pointing to it and it doesn’t point to anything else, it may be background or a side point.

Step 4: Identify sub-conclusions (the “bridge” claims)

When you see a chain, mark the middle claim as a sub-conclusion:

Reason A + Reason B  →  Sub-conclusion X  →  Main conclusion Y

Sub-conclusions often summarize several details (“So the rollout plan is unrealistic”) and then feed into a recommendation (“Therefore we should delay the launch”).

Worked example 1: short news-opinion paragraph

Passage: “The city’s new parking app was supposed to reduce congestion, but it’s doing the opposite. Drivers now circle longer because the app frequently crashes, and the payment screen times out. Local shop owners report more canceled pickups since the change. The city should pause the rollout and restore the old meters until the app is stable.”

Step 1: List all claims

• C1: The parking app was supposed to reduce congestion.
• C2: The parking app is increasing congestion.
• C3: Drivers circle longer because the app frequently crashes.
• C4: The payment screen times out.
• C5: Shop owners report more canceled pickups since the change.
• C6: The city should pause the rollout.
• C7: The city should restore the old meters until the app is stable.

Step 2: What is being supported?

C6 and C7 are recommendations; they are strong candidates. C2 is also supported by C3–C5.

Step 3: Supporting reasons

• C3 and C4 support C2 (crashes/timeouts → more circling).
• C5 supports C2 (more canceled pickups suggests disruption and extra driving).
• C2 supports C6 and C7 (if it increases congestion, pause/restore).

Step 4: Sub-conclusions

C2 (“the app is increasing congestion”) functions as a sub-conclusion: it is supported by details (C3–C5) and supports the recommendation (C6/C7). The main conclusion is the action the author ultimately wants: pause the rollout and restore old meters until stable (C6/C7 together form the main conclusion; you can treat them as a combined conclusion if they are presented as one plan).

Worked example 2: workplace message with side points

Message: “Quick heads-up: the client moved the demo to Thursday. That’s not ideal because Finance still hasn’t confirmed pricing, and the latest build has a login bug on iOS. Also, the slide deck is out of date after last week’s scope change. We should run a shorter demo focused on the core workflow and avoid the add-on module.”

Step 1: List all claims

• C1: The client moved the demo to Thursday.
• C2: Finance hasn’t confirmed pricing.
• C3: The latest build has a login bug on iOS.
• C4: The slide deck is out of date after the scope change.
• C5: We should run a shorter demo focused on the core workflow.
• C6: We should avoid the add-on module.

Step 2: What is being supported?

C5 and C6 are recommendations and are supported by C2–C4. C1 is mostly context (it explains why the issue is urgent) but does not itself support the specific demo strategy unless connected explicitly.

Step 3: Supporting reasons

• C2 supports C5/C6 (uncertain pricing → avoid areas where pricing questions arise).
• C3 supports C5/C6 (bug risk → keep demo narrow).
• C4 supports C5 (outdated deck → shorten and focus).

Step 4: Sub-conclusions

There is an implied sub-conclusion like “We are not ready for a full demo,” but it is not stated. The main conclusion is the proposed plan: run a shorter demo focused on the core workflow and avoid the add-on module.

How to tell main conclusion vs. subsidiary conclusion in practice

Look for “plan” vs. “assessment” structure

In messy writing, authors often do this:

• Assessment sub-conclusion: “So the current approach is failing / risky / unfair.”
• Main conclusion (plan): “Therefore we should change X / do Y / stop Z.”

The assessment is supported by evidence; the plan is supported by the assessment.

Check whether a supported claim is used again as support

If claim X is supported by reasons and then used to support another claim, X is probably a sub-conclusion. The claim at the end of the chain is the main conclusion.

Beware of “headline” sentences

Openers like “This is unacceptable” or “We can’t keep doing this” may feel like the main point, but often they are just emphasis. Ask: does the text ultimately push you toward a specific belief or action beyond that emotional label?

Practice set A: news-opinion paragraphs

Instructions

For each passage: (1) choose the main conclusion, (2) choose any subsidiary conclusion, and (3) write one sentence explaining why (e.g., “Claim B is supported by details and then supports the recommendation, so it’s subsidiary”).

Passage A1

“The school board says the new bus routes will be ‘more efficient,’ but families are reporting longer rides and missed first periods. The contractor also changed pickup windows with only two days’ notice. The board needs to revise the routes before next month, even if it costs more.”

• Option 1: Families are reporting longer rides and missed first periods.
• Option 2: The board needs to revise the routes before next month, even if it costs more.
• Option 3: The contractor changed pickup windows with only two days’ notice.

Passage A2

“Restaurant fees are out of control. When a $14 sandwich becomes $22 after service charges and ‘delivery adjustments,’ customers stop ordering. That’s why the city should require all-in pricing on menus and apps.”

• Option 1: Restaurant fees are out of control.
• Option 2: Customers stop ordering when fees inflate prices.
• Option 3: The city should require all-in pricing on menus and apps.

Passage A3

“Yes, remote work has challenges. But our team’s output rose 12% after we stopped commuting, and attrition dropped for two quarters. Since hiring is still slow, keeping the remote policy is the most practical way to maintain capacity.”

• Option 1: Remote work has challenges.
• Option 2: Output rose 12% and attrition dropped after stopping commuting.
• Option 3: Keeping the remote policy is the most practical way to maintain capacity.

Practice set B: workplace messages (main vs. subsidiary)

Passage B1

“We keep missing the handoff between Sales and Implementation. The notes in the CRM are inconsistent, and kickoff calls often happen without the right stakeholders. So the onboarding experience feels chaotic to clients. We should standardize the handoff checklist and require a 15-minute internal pre-kickoff.”

• Main conclusion options:
  • M1: The onboarding experience feels chaotic to clients.
  • M2: We should standardize the handoff checklist and require a 15-minute internal pre-kickoff.
• Subsidiary conclusion options:
  • S1: The onboarding experience feels chaotic to clients.
  • S2: The notes in the CRM are inconsistent.

Passage B2

“I know the new vendor is cheaper, but their last two shipments arrived late and one batch failed QA. If we switch now, we’ll spend the savings on rework and expedited freight. Let’s keep the current vendor through Q2 and revisit after we have reliability data.”

• Option 1: The new vendor is cheaper.
• Option 2: Switching now will erase savings due to rework and expedited freight.
• Option 3: Keep the current vendor through Q2 and revisit later.

Passage B3

“The dashboard looks impressive, but it’s not answering the questions leadership actually asks. We’re tracking clicks instead of renewals, and the definitions differ across teams. Until we align on metrics, publishing this weekly will create more confusion than clarity. We should pause the weekly send and run a metrics alignment session.”

• Option 1: The dashboard is not answering leadership’s questions.
• Option 2: Publishing weekly will create more confusion than clarity until metrics are aligned.
• Option 3: Pause the weekly send and run a metrics alignment session.

Answer key with explanations (compare to your choices)

A1

Main conclusion: Option 2. Why: Options 1 and 3 are presented as problems that support the recommendation to revise routes; the recommendation is the ultimate point.

A2

Main conclusion: Option 3. Subsidiary conclusion: Option 1 can function as a brief summary judgment, but it mainly sets up the policy proposal. Why: Option 2 supports the policy by explaining the harm; the policy requirement is what the author wants adopted.

A3

Main conclusion: Option 3. Why: Option 2 provides performance and retention support; the passage aims to justify keeping the remote policy.

B1

Main conclusion: M2. Subsidiary conclusion: S1. Why: The “chaotic to clients” claim is supported by the handoff problems and then supports the process-change recommendation, making it subsidiary.

B2

Main conclusion: Option 3. Subsidiary conclusion: Option 2. Why: Late shipments and QA failures support the intermediate claim that switching erases savings; that intermediate claim supports the recommendation to keep the current vendor.

B3

Main conclusion: Option 3. Subsidiary conclusion: Option 2. Why: Misaligned metrics support the intermediate warning about confusion; that warning supports the action to pause and align.

Quick worksheet you can reuse on any messy paragraph