Free with an account · 3 conclusion variants, no clichés
Paste your thesis and key points. Get 3 distinct conclusions — one synthesizes, one widens to implications, one calls the reader to act.
See how it works — click any example
Three conclusion types per run — synthesis, broader-implication, and call-to-action (plus reflection, counter-argument, or research tie-off when relevant). Three lengths: short 55-95w / medium 95-165w / long 165-260w.
3 distinct conclusion paragraphs, each scored 1-5 on thesis-restatement, synthesis, padding-avoidance, and reader-takeaway — with an honest critique, refined rewrite, and revision tips. Pair with the Thesis and Outline tools.
Short social posts — use the Hook Generator instead. Mid-draft paragraphs — this is for closing. We never introduce new evidence or invent citations. "In conclusion…" is banned — 33 other clichés stripped.
Free with an account — 30/month. Upgrade to Pro for 1,500/month. Each conclusion run costs 2 credits.
Thesis: "Public libraries should expand evening hours because working parents lose access, students lack after-school study space, and community engagement drops after 5pm." · Argumentative · Academic · Medium (95-165w)
Option 1 · synthesis + stakes · 142 words
Closing library doors at 5pm does not save a municipality money — it transfers the cost to the families who can least absorb it. The working parent who finishes a shift at 6, the high-schooler without a quiet bedroom, the retiree who once relied on evening lectures for connection: each of these groups lost something specific when the last librarian went home. What the three reasons share is a common shape — an institution built around the needs of the unemployed daytime user, perfected for a population that barely uses it anymore. Extending evening hours is not a program expansion but an audit. It asks who the library is actually for, and whether a public good that sleeps through half the week is still a public good at all.
Critique: Strong: the "audit, not expansion" reframe does real work. Weak: "who the library is actually for" slightly overreaches the body evidence — tighten to the three populations you actually named.
Option 2 · policy pivot · 128 words
The evening-hours debate is a test case for how cities decide what a public service is worth. The data from the pilot cities suggests that the access problem is not hypothetical — it sorts neatly along income, age, and caregiving lines. A municipal budget that trims evening library hours to save a modest line item is a budget that has implicitly decided these populations are not part of the library's constituency. The work ahead is less about the 18% engagement lift (though the lift is real) and more about which stakeholders the next council meeting invites to the microphone. Cities that have held evening hearings on library funding have consistently voted to expand.
Critique: Strong: makes the stakes structural, not sentimental. Weak: the final "cities have consistently voted" sentence is new evidence — cut or hedge ("anecdotally", "several cases suggest").
Option 3 · reader call-to-action · 117 words
The library board meets next month. Your city's published hours can be checked in under a minute, and the gap between what they are and what working families need is almost certainly larger than the board has measured. Three small acts make a difference: share the pilot-city engagement data with your representative, ask a retired teacher or a shift-working parent to speak at a hearing, and — if your library offers evening programming at all — show up once this quarter so the usage data reflects demand. Evening hours do not expand themselves. They expand when a council sees who walks in after 5pm and decides that service counts.
Critique: Strong: concrete, specific actions — not "do the right thing" moralizing. Weak: doesn't restate the thesis directly — fine for an op-ed, risky for a graded argumentative essay.
+ 3 revision tips · refined rewrite per option · banned-cliché list the tool actively avoided
For your thesis (and optional key points), you get exactly 3 conclusion paragraph options — each with a deliberately different rhetorical emphasis. One may synthesize the argument, one may pivot to broader implications, one may land on a call-to-action or reflection. Each option includes: the paragraph text, a 2-6 word "angle" label, a declared emphasis, an honest word count, a one-sentence critique (what's strong + what's weak), an optional refined rewrite, and 1-5 scores on four rubric items — restates-thesis, synthesizes, avoids-padding, leaves-reader. Plus 2-4 revision tips and the list of banned clichés we avoided.
A conclusion is a rhetorical decision, not a fixed form. Synthesis-heavy works for a literature paper but feels flat on a policy essay; a call-to-action lands on a persuasive piece but sounds pushy on an analytical one. Reading three meaningfully-different versions side-by-side lets you feel the tradeoffs — which closing matches your evidence, your tone, your word budget — and pick the one that fits.
No — on purpose. This tool does one thing: the last paragraph. You bring the thesis and the key points you already argued (or sketched). If you need the full draft, use the Blog Post Writer. If you need the scaffold, use the Essay Outline Generator. A great conclusion is easier to write when the rest of the piece is actually there first.
No. The prompt explicitly forbids new evidence in the conclusion — a conclusion lands the plane, it doesn't take off again. If a strong closing would reference a number the essay already used, the tool hedges ("a notable share", "roughly") so you can plug in the exact figure. We never fabricate authors, studies, DOIs, or dates.
Banned. The prompt maintains a list of 18 cliché openers — "In conclusion", "To sum up", "All in all", "As discussed above", "Ultimately" as a paragraph opener, etc. — and 15 cliché phrases — "in today's fast-paced world", "throughout history", "only time will tell", "food for thought". If you want them, you'll have to add them yourself.
You pick: short (55-95 words), medium (95-165 words), or long (165-260 words). Short is for essays under 800 words or a blog outro. Medium is a standard body paragraph — room for synthesis plus a landing sentence. Long fits 1500+ word papers and may run two short paragraphs. We recount the words on our side and overwrite the model's count with an honest one, so the number you see is real.
Yes — 8 piece types: argumentative, analytical, expository, compare-contrast, cause-effect, persuasive, blog-post, and research-paper. Each type changes what the conclusion is expected to do. Analytical closes on what the analysis illuminates. Compare-contrast crystallizes the "so what" of the comparison. Research-paper restates findings and acknowledges limits. Blog post lands on a practical takeaway. The tool tunes every option to the type you pick.
Yes — pick the "academic" tone. The output uses third person and measured phrasing; for research-paper + academic tone, no contractions, present tense for claims, past for findings. For conversational or persuasive tones the register loosens — contractions, direct address, a final sentence that lands with weight. Reflective tone allows "may / might / perhaps" hedging if your thesis is genuinely uncertain.
ChatGPT gives you one conclusion and moves on. Here you get three options built on different rhetorical strategies, each scored on the rubric writing tutors actually use. ChatGPT's default has the banned clichés baked in — "In conclusion", "In today's fast-paced world", "As this essay has shown". We actively suppress them. And the critique + refined rewrite turn every option into a short tutoring session, not a finished artifact you blindly copy.
For brainstorming and revising your own work: yes, almost always fine — it's equivalent to running a draft conclusion past a writing-center tutor. For turning in AI-written drafts unchanged: check your institution's academic-integrity policy. This tool is built for the first use case, not the second. Every option includes an honest critique for that reason — the point is to help you write a conclusion, not to hand you one to submit.
First 3 runs per day are free without signup. Free account adds 30 credits/month; a conclusion run costs 2 credits. Most students run 2-3 generations per paper to find the right angle — well within the free tier for a weekly essay habit.