In order to get the most out of your reading on the Reading Comprehension section of the GMAT, you must learn how to break down the passage into manageable chunks. The introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion are the three recognizable portions of any expository piece of writing.
While the introduction and body paragraphs almost always reveal the topic of the passage and the evidence or details to support an argument, respectively, the conclusion has a less consistent function. On the GMAT, passages are edited heavily so that every bit of information has a function; as a result, some passages do not have conclusions devoted to reiterating the main points of the passage. Often, a concluding paragraph will take the form of a body paragraph, but somehow the new information will resolve the information presented throughout. The best way to approach a conclusion is to be aware that it may not be what you expect, but in any case, it provides valuable information that will likely be tested in a question. Below is a sample GMAT reading passage in its entirety; read the introduction and skim the body paragraphs to get a good sense of the main idea, but then read the conclusion closely:
The classical realist theory of international relations has long
dominated both academic institutions and the American government.
Even at the birth of the nation, early political thinkers such as
Alexander Hamilton promoted a realist view of international relations
and sought to influence the actions of the government based on
this perspective. While the classical realist school of international
relations is not entirely homogeneous in nature, there are certain
premises that all classical realists share.
The primary principle underlying classical realism is a concern
with issues of war and peace. Specifically, classical realists ask, what
are the causes of war and what are the conditions of peace? The members
of the classical realist school mainly attribute war and conflict
to what is termed the security dilemma. In the absence of any prevailing
global authority, each nation is required to address its own
security needs. However, each nation’s quest for security—through
military buildups, alliances, or territorial defenses—necessarily unsettles
other nations. These nations react to feelings of insecurity by
engaging in their own aggressive actions, which leads other nations
to react similarly, perpetuating the cycle.
It is important to note that for realists, unlike idealists or liberal
internationalists, international conflict is a necessary consequence of
the structural anarchy that nations find themselves in. Whereas other
schools may see international conflict as the result of evil dictators,
historical chance, flawed sociopolitical systems, or ignorance of world
affairs, classical realists see war as the logical result of a system that
by its nature lacks a true central authority.
Hand in hand with this view of conflict as an inevitable condition
of the global power structure is the realists’ view of the nation as a
unitary actor. Because classical realists see international relations as
a continuing struggle for dominance, the nation can not be viewed
as a collection of individuals with disparate wants, goals, and ideologies.
The realist view requires the formulation of a national interest,
which in its simplest terms refers to the nation’s ability to survive,
maintain its security, and achieve some level of power relative to its
competitors.
Realism is not without its critics, many of whom challenge the
premise that war is the natural condition of international relations or
that there can be a truly national interest. However, the realist school
of international relations continues to shape foreign policy because of
the successes it has had in describing real world interactions between
nations.
From the introduction, we know that the author is writing about the classical realist theory of international relations and he is writing about it because it has, for a long time, been the most dominant theory of international relations in both academic institutions and the government. The author simply wants to show that there are certain premises that all classical realists share, so we can be confident that the body of the article will focus on detailing the general premises that characterize classical realism. Now, let’s examine the conclusion’s function within the context of the passage:
1st sentence: Realism is not without its critics, many of whom challenge the premise that war is the natural condition of international relations or that there can be truly national interest.
Notice that this is the first sentence of the conclusion, but it introduces a somewhat new idea. We’ve spent the first four paragraphs discussing the premises of classical realism, but now we want to acknowledge that, despite its prevalence, it has its critics. This sentence reveals a reasonable objection to classical realism—the premise that war is a natural condition can be viewed as pessimistic.
2nd sentence: However, the realist school of international relations continues to shape foreign policy because of the success it has had in describing real world interactions between nations.
The final sentence, which reiterates the main point made in the passage, is only strengthened by the anticipated objection raised in the first sentence. In other words, despite the possible objection, the realist school of international relations is still quite influential because of the success its had in describing international relations.