Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill.original_ [237]
In summary, we believe that the properties of JZL184 warrant inclusion of this compound among the growing arsenal of efficacious and selective pharmacological probes used to examine the endocannabinoid system. JZL184 could itself serve as a lead scaffold for the development of such dual inhibitors, given that at high concentrations this compound inhibited both MAGL and FAAH without affecting other brain serine hydrolases.
SOLVING TYPICAL PROBLEMS IN CONCLUSIONS
The primary challenge in writing conclusions, it should now be evident, lies in finding a way to culminate your analysis without claiming either too little or too much. There are a number of fairly common problems to guard against if you are to avoid either of these two extremes.
Redundancy
In Chapter 10, we lampooned an exaggerated example of the 5-paragraph form for constructing its conclusion by stating “Thus, we see” and then repeating the introduction verbatim. The result is redundancy. It’s a good idea to refer back to the opening, but it’s a bad idea just to reinsert it mechanically. Instead, reevaluate what you said there in light of where you’ve ended up, repeating only key words or phrases from the introduction. This kind of selective repetition is a desirable way of achieving unity and will keep you from making one of two opposite mistakes—either repeating too much or bringing up a totally new point in the conclusion.
Raising a Totally New Point
Raising a totally new point can distract or bewilder a reader. This problem often arises out of a writer’s praiseworthy desire to avoid repetition. As a rule, you can guard against the problem by making sure you have clearly expressed the conceptual link between your central conclusion and any implications you may draw. An implication is not a totally new point but rather one that follows from the position you have been analyzing.
Similarly, although a capping judgment or send-off may appear for the first time in your concluding paragraph, it should have been anticipated by the body of your paper. Conclusions often indicate where you think you (or an interested reader) may need to go next, but you don’t actually go there. In a paper on economist Milton Friedman, for example, if you think another economist offers a useful way of critiquing him, you probably should not introduce this person for the first time in your conclusion.
Overstatement
Many writers are confused over how much they should claim in the conclusion. Out of the understandable (but mistaken) desire for a grand (rather than a modest and qualified) culmination, writers sometimes overstate the case. They assert more than their evidence has proven or even suggested. Must a conclusion arrive at some comprehensive and final answer to the question your paper has analyzed?
Depending on the question and the disciplinary conventions, you may need to come down exclusively on one side or another. In a great many cases, however, the answers with which you conclude can be more moderate. Especially in the humanities, good analytical writing seeks to unfold successive layers of implication, so it’s not even reasonable for you to expect neat closure. In such cases, you are usually better off qualifying your final judgments, drawing the line at points of relative stability.
Anticlimax
The end of the conclusion is a “charged” site because it gives the reader a last impression of your paper. If you end with a concession—an acknowledgement of a rival position at odds with your thesis—you risk leaving the reader unsettled and possibly confused. The term for this kind of letdown is “anticlimax.” In most cases, you will flub the send-off if you depart the paper on an anticlimax.
There are many forms of anticlimax besides ending with a concession. If your conclusion