: Re: If your Introduction can function as a Conclusion, isn't it redundant to write anything in the Conclusion beside "refer to the Introduction"? In the example below, I would state the Conclusion

@Bryan361

Vote Up Vote Down

You've almost managed to answer yourself - you have a 'conclusion' at the beginning and a different conclusion at the end. Their defining difference is the fact that one is given before the bulk of the information and one afterwards.
Think of it the other way round; what if you took the conclusion from the end and stuck it on the beginning as an introduction? Or skipped the introduction and just put 'refer to the conclusion' ?
Nobody does this, because the purpose of an introduction is to explain roughly what points will be made in the piece - this is primarily so that a reader can determine from the first few sentences whether the piece is relevant to whatever they're researching.
The conclusion at the end is fundamentally different in that supporting evidence will have been given during the piece, and therefore a reader (assuming they have read through the piece) will be much better informed. This allows the conclusion at the end to be more detailed and use / refer to specific facts, principles or jargon in order to fill out and prove the point (Obviously only where those facts or jargon have been explained in the body of the piece). Putting those more complex details into an introduction would be bad because it would hinder the introduction in its job of showing the reader briefly what the piece is about.

(0)

Login to post a comment!