Read a stack of candidate scripts and a pattern appears: the rule is there, the facts are applied, and then the answer simply stops. Sometimes with a comma. Occasionally with "hence" and no sentence after it.
The conclusion is the cheapest mark in a bar paper and the most frequently abandoned. This article is about writing one — and about the three conclusions that are not conclusions.
Why the conclusion matters more than it looks
Three reasons, none of them stylistic.
It is what the question asked for. "May X rescind?" wants a yes or no. An answer that reasons correctly to the edge of the answer and never crosses it leaves the examiner to complete it — and examiners mark what is written, not what is implied.
It is the rubric's visible proof. A marker working through twenty scripts in an hour is matching sentences to rubric lines. A conclusion is a one-line signal that all three preceding moves were completed with intent. Its absence suggests the candidate was unsure — even when the reasoning was sound.
It forces the reasoning to land. You cannot conclude "the contract is void" after an application that actually pointed to voidable, which means writing the conclusion is itself a check on the analysis. Candidates discover their own errors at the moment of committing them to a sentence.
The four-part conclusion
A good closing sentence or two does four things. Not all four are needed every time, but the first is.
- The direct answer. Yes / no / liable / not liable / void / voidable / granted / denied.
- The thing asked for. If the question asked for the crime, name it. If it asked for the remedy, name it with its rule source. If it asked for the amount, state it.
- The consequence. What follows: the contract is unenforceable, the buyer may register, the period runs from filing, the accused is entitled to acquittal on reasonable doubt.
- A flag where the question had two parts. "On the second question, the answer is the opposite, because…" — one clause, no elaboration.
Four ways to write it badly
The trailing hedge. "It is submitted that the better view may well be that, in the circumstances, liability could attach." Nothing is asserted. A marker cannot mark a possibility.
The conditional pass. "If the court finds that X acted in bad faith, then he is liable; if not, then he is not." This is a restatement of the question, not an answer. If the facts genuinely support either reading, choose: "The facts point to bad faith, because…; the answer is that he is liable." See how a bar answer is scored for the discipline of committing to a fork.
The summary. "Thus, as discussed above, the requisites are…" — a conclusion must conclude, not recapitulate. If the answer's last sentence could have opened it, it is not a conclusion.
The missing part. "X is liable under Article 4." The question asked for the crime and the civil liability. Answering one of three is not a conclusion; it is a third of one.
Openings and closings, working together
Write the conclusion twice: once as the first sentence (the answer), and once at the end (the answer plus the consequence). This is not padding; it is how the examiner navigates.
Opening: X is liable for the death of Z under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. [rule, elements, application] Closing: X is therefore liable for Z's death as the direct consequence of the unlawful means he used, and not for an attempt on Y.
Notice the closing does something the opening could not: it states the shape of the liability, which is the point the answer was arguing. That is the model — the opening names the outcome, the closing states what the outcome consists of.
For each question shape, a closing move
| Shape | The closing sentence does this |
|---|---|
| Distinction | States the practical difference: what one permits and the other does not |
| Requisites | States whether the list is satisfied: "the third requisite is absent, so no valid novation arose" |
| Multi-part | Ends each part, then one line tying them together if the parts interact |
| Status | Names the status and the consequence: "it is void, so neither ratification nor prescription of the action can give it life" |
| Liability | Names the crime (or its absence) and the civil liability separately |
| Procedural | Names the remedy, its period, and what happens to the filing as made |
Three conclusion patterns worth memorising
The commit: "The answer is X, because Y." Short, and enough for a yes/no question.
The commit with consequence: "X is therefore liable for Y under [provision]; Z may accordingly recover [remedy]." For anything with a remedy attached.
The both-sides commit: "Had the period been for the debtor's benefit alone, the answer would be A. On these facts it is B, because…" For genuine ambiguity — and only then, because the habit becomes a crutch if overused.
A two-minute drill
Take any ten past questions. Do not answer them. For each, write only the closing sentence — the answer plus the consequence. Ten conclusions, twenty minutes.
Then check each against the question: does it answer the thing that was asked, including every part? You will find, usually within three questions, that you have been writing conclusions about the wrong question — the one you found interesting rather than the one on the page. That discovery is the entire point of the drill.
Why this is worth a whole article
Because it is a mark that is available to every candidate, on every question, for almost no time: four sentences, twelve seconds. Across twenty problems it is not a trivial number — and unlike knowledge, it can be fixed in an afternoon of practice.
The paper rewards what is on the page. A correct answer that stops one sentence short is, for marking purposes, incomplete — and a candidate who learns to close every answer, even the ones they were unsure of, is a candidate who has stopped leaving marks behind.