If you've followed my instructions on how to write an introduction, you're probably thinking to yourself: "Self, if I've given away everything in the introduction (which I used to do in the conclusion), then what do I put in the conclusion?" It's a good question to ask yourself given that you're used to writing like you were crafting a mystery novel.
Think of it this way: The introduction is about argument while the conclusion is about narrative (without introducing anything new). The introduction should concentrate on getting the argument and factual information across in somewhat of a pedantic tone whereas you can, and probably should, make the conclusion more "story like." You can put more of yourself as an author into the conclusion--perhaps even editorialize just a tad--and emphasize certain points of argument you made over others in the body of your paper. Just remember not to add any new factual or argumentative information.
Take this introduction as an example:
Think of it this way: The introduction is about argument while the conclusion is about narrative (without introducing anything new). The introduction should concentrate on getting the argument and factual information across in somewhat of a pedantic tone whereas you can, and probably should, make the conclusion more "story like." You can put more of yourself as an author into the conclusion--perhaps even editorialize just a tad--and emphasize certain points of argument you made over others in the body of your paper. Just remember not to add any new factual or argumentative information.
Take this introduction as an example: