Introduction: Building a Stronger Case

Welcome! You’ve already learned how to state a Main Conclusion (MC) and provide Reasons (R) to support it. But in the real world, most arguments aren't just a simple "Reason A, therefore Conclusion B." If you want to persuade someone of a complex idea, you need to build your argument in stages. This is where Intermediate Conclusions (IC) come in. Think of them as the "stepping stones" that lead your reader safely across a river from your starting evidence to your final point.

What is an Intermediate Conclusion?

An Intermediate Conclusion (IC) is a claim that does two jobs at the same time: 1. It acts as a conclusion because it is supported by reasons. 2. It acts as a reason because it provides support for the Main Conclusion. In a well-structured argument, the flow of logic looks like this:

Reason \(\to\) Intermediate Conclusion \(\to\) Main Conclusion

Why Use Intermediate Conclusions?

Structuring your reasoning this way makes your argument much more powerful for a few reasons:
  • Clarity: It breaks a big, complicated argument into smaller, "bite-sized" pieces.
  • Organization: It allows you to group different strands of reasoning together (see the chapter on Developing strands of reasoning for more on this).
  • Persuasiveness: By proving "mini-points" along the way, you build a sense of momentum that makes your final conclusion feel inevitable.

Step-by-Step: How to Structure with ICs

When you are constructing an argument for Paper 4 (Question 4) or Paper 2, follow these steps to build a logical structure:

1. Group Your Reasons

Instead of listing five random reasons, see which ones belong together. For example, if you are arguing that "Cities should ban cars," you might have reasons about pollution and reasons about traffic accidents.

2. Create a "Mini-Conclusion" for Each Group

Take your group of reasons and summarize the point they prove.
Example:
Reason 1: Car exhaust contains harmful nitrogen dioxide.
Reason 2: High levels of smog lead to increased asthma rates in children.
Intermediate Conclusion 1: Therefore, banning cars would significantly improve the public health of city residents.

3. Link the IC to the Main Conclusion

Now, take that IC and show how it supports your "Big Idea."
Example:
Intermediate Conclusion 1: Banning cars improves public health.
Main Conclusion: Therefore, city councils should implement a total ban on private vehicles.

The "Stepping Stone" Analogy

Imagine you are trying to convince your parents to let you go on a trip.

Reason 1: I have finished all my assignments early.
Reason 2: I have maintained an \(A\) average this term.
IC 1: (Stepping Stone) So, I have shown I am responsible and hard-working.

Reason 3: The trip is supervised by teachers.
Reason 4: There is a strict 10 PM curfew.
IC 2: (Stepping Stone) Therefore, the trip is a safe environment.

Main Conclusion: You should allow me to go on the trip.

If you had just jumped from "I have an \(A\) average" to "Let me go on the trip," the logic is weaker. The Intermediate Conclusion bridges the gap by explaining why the grades matter (they prove responsibility).

Common Mistakes to Avoid

1. The "Floating" Reason: This happens when you provide a reason but don't explain how it leads to a conclusion. Always ask yourself: "What does this specific fact prove?" That answer is your IC.

2. Circularity: Don't let your Intermediate Conclusion just be a re-wording of your Main Conclusion. An IC must be a distinct step forward in the logic. (Remember, circular reasoning is a fallacy to avoid!)

3. Overcomplicating: You don’t need ten ICs. Usually, two or three solid strands of reasoning, each with its own IC, are enough to build a very strong A-Level argument.

Quick Review: The Structure of Success

  • Reasons provide the raw evidence.
  • Intermediate Conclusions summarize what those reasons prove about a specific sub-topic.
  • The Main Conclusion is the final "destination" supported by all your ICs.
Key Takeaway
Don't just pile up reasons! Organize them into groups, draw a "mini-conclusion" (IC) from each group, and use those ICs to drive the reader toward your Main Conclusion. This shows the examiner you can "structure reasoning" effectively.