An intermediate conclusion is a statement that is both supported by a premise and used to support the argument's main conclusion. It sits in the middle of the reasoning chain, acting as a conclusion for one step and a premise for the next. On the LSAT, telling it apart from the main conclusion is essential.
By Ali Unar, Founder, Lovare Institut; JD/MSFS Candidate, Georgetown University. Last updated August 2026. Every figure on this page was verified in August 2026 against the sources listed below.
An intermediate conclusion, also called a subsidiary conclusion or sub-conclusion, is a claim that plays two roles at once. It is supported by at least one premise, which makes it a conclusion, and it in turn supports the argument's main conclusion, which makes it function as a premise. This double role places it in the middle of the reasoning chain.
To tell the two apart, find the single claim that everything else in the argument ultimately supports; that is the main conclusion. An intermediate conclusion, by contrast, is itself supported and then used as support for something further. A useful test is the word therefore: the statement that nothing else is used to prove, yet which the whole argument drives toward, is the main conclusion.
Intermediate conclusions matter because several LSAT Logical Reasoning question types depend on identifying them correctly. Main Point questions ask for the final conclusion, and a well-placed intermediate conclusion is the most common wrong-answer trap. Method of Reasoning and Role of a Statement questions ask directly how a claim functions, so recognizing an intermediate conclusion is often the whole point.
Consider an argument that offers evidence, draws a smaller conclusion from it, and then uses that smaller conclusion to reach a final point. The smaller, middle claim is the intermediate conclusion. In practice it is the sentence you could preface with therefore, but which is then followed by a further therefore leading to the main conclusion. Mapping premises and conclusions on paper makes these chains easy to see.
Most students study three to six months for the LSAT. Fine distinctions like the intermediate conclusion come into focus once you have the basics of argument structure down, usually within the first month or two, and then sharpen through Logical Reasoning drilling across the rest of your timeline.
Start three to six months before your LSAT date, learning argument structure early so terms like intermediate conclusion make sense in context. Recognizing how claims support one another is a foundation for Logical Reasoning, so covering it early pays off through every later drilling and full-length testing phase.
The skill of tracing intermediate conclusions transfers directly to LSAT Reading Comprehension, where passages build claims on other claims. Track how each paragraph supports the author's main point and where sub-conclusions appear. Reading for that structure, and logging misses by question type, steadily raises your comprehension accuracy.
Verified August 2026.
September 20, 2026
September 20, 2026