Expect Your Conclusion to be a First Impression with Written Advocacy
- Trevor Morley
- Mar 1
- 3 min read
WHY SHOULD YOU EXPECT A READER TO START WITH YOUR CONCLUSION?
Despite the conclusion being the end of your argument, sometimes the reader starts there. This is why the conclusion must also persuade the reader that your argument is an easy read by being clear, concise, signposting a clear structure and providing relevant context using simple language.
It is important to consider that a conclusion needs to be written for both a reader that knows everything about your argument and a reader that knows nothing about your argument! It cannot be ‘boring’ for the informed reader, and it cannot be too ‘confusing’ for the uninformed reader.
WHAT IS A REVERSE SIGNPOST STRUCTURE FOR A CONCLUSION?
The art of a conclusion is that it reminds the reader of the key points of the argument without being an extensive summary.
One way to think of it as a ‘reverse signpost’ of the structure. When thought of that way it is easy to understand how it can be useful to both the informed and uninformed reader. For the informed reader it reminds them of what they read and for the uninformed reader it provides confidence that there is a clear structure if they start from the beginning.
WHY DOES A CONCLUSION NEED TO STATE THE DESIRED ACTION AND WHY IT IS THE CORRECT ACTION?
Suspense about your desired action is not a good technique for effective advocacy. You do not want your reader to be distracted by what you are trying to persuade them about. You want your reader to know what you want and to be engaged in whether that is a reasonable decision based on the context that you provide.
The desired action does not need to be explicit in the first paragraph (it does need to be advanced very early in a written argument) but it does need to be explicit in the conclusion.
This is useful to both the informed reader and the uninformed reader. However, it is important to recognize that for an uninformed reader, this may create tension if their first reaction is that desired action is unreasonable.
Consequently, the desired action needs to be provided in context. Compare the following two example conclusions:
For all the reasons I just explained, the Strata must raise $2,000,000 by special levy to pay for the necessary repairs to the building envelope.
The building envelope is a critical component that prevents physical damage to the structure and health risks to owners. The cost of repairing the building envelope is high, but the cost of not repairing it or only doing partial repairs will be higher in the medium term. The Strata does not have adequate money in the contingency reserve fund to pay for these repairs so the only viable way to pay for these repairs is a combination of spending money from the contingency reserve fund and raising an additional $2,000,000 from owners through a special levy.
The first example may be suitable for an informed reader because they understand that the desired action is derived from the information in the argument. However, for an uninformed reader it may be a shocking demand that predisposes them to refuting that conclusion.
The second example is suitable for both readers. It does not repeat the details of the argument but it does provide the context. The informed reader, when they read “the building envelope is a critical component” is reminded of the argument supporting that premise and the uninformed reader recognizes that is a premise that they need to pay attention to while reading the argument.
A CONCLUSION NEEDS TO BE UNDERSTANDABLE BY AN UNINFORMED READER
The conclusion of a written argument is very similar in structure to the first paragraph because it might be the first paragraph that is read. The key difference between a conclusion and a first paragraph is that it needs to be composed for two distinct possible readers – one that has already been exposed to the argument and one that has not.
An effective conclusion clearly states the desired action in a way that is unlikely to be considered unreasonable to a reader that is unfamiliar with the context and information of the argument.
