Conclusion + evidence + intermediate

conclusion
More complex arguments might include something called
an intermediate conclusion. Also known as a subsidiary
conclusion (or “sub-conclusion” for short), this is a claim
that acts both as a conclusion and as evidence. In other
words, it’s a conclusion based on evidence, but it’s a
conclusion that leads to yet another conclusion. For that
reason, the intermediate conclusion can’t be the main
conclusion.

Let’s modify our simple argument from above so that it

contains an intermediate conclusion:

 Sarah will probably receive a job offer, because she

has ten years of experience. That means that she’ll soon
pay me back for the money I lent her.
[What's the intermediate conclusion here?]




Can you see how the new main conclusion is that Sarah will
soon pay me back? That’s because Sarah receiving a job
offer is the reason to believe that she’ll pay me back. So
Sarah receiving a job offer is the conclusion for her having
ten years of experience, but it’s also the evidence for the
prediction that she’ll soon pay me back.