It's an interesting question, but I don't know the work of either of the two people you have mentioned. Rather than digging for their interpretation, let's invent an argument and then analyze it.

John looks sad and depressed. He must have failed the final exam. His grade was already pretty low in the class, so a fail on the final exam will result in him failing the course. Accordingly, John will repeat the course next semester.

In this text we can find multiple conclusions, multiple premises, and maybe even an assumption or two. Let's break it down line by line.

John looks sad and depressed. This is not a claim because nothing backs this information up. It is merely presented as a fact. It must be a premise.

John must have failed the final exam. This is a claim. It contains a modal verb. We can employ the why? test to determine what parts of the argument support this claim.

John must have failed.
Why? Because he looks sad and depressed.
What's the assumption?
John will feel sad and depressed if he has failed the final exam.

His grade was already pretty low in the class, so a fail on the final exam will result in him failing the course. This is presented as a fact with nothing backing it up. It must be a premise.

Accordingly, John will repeat the course next semester. This is a claim. It contains a modal verb. We can employ the why? test to determine what parts of the argument support this claim.

John will repeat the course next semester.
Why?
Because John has failed the final exam.
Because a fail on the final exam will result in him failing the course.

What's the assumption? If John fails the course, he will take it again next semester.

Since the conclusion "John has failed the final exam" supports the final (main) conclusion, we can conclude that the previous conclusion "John must have failed" is an intermediate conclusion on the way to the final conclusion.

I was not talking about Premise Vs Assumption or anything else, but conclusion vs conclusion.

richachampion wrote:I was not talking about Premise Vs Assumption or anything else, but conclusion vs conclusion.

You can think of an intermediate conclusion as an opinion that's used in support of another opinion. A simple example:

Tim says Team X is likely to win the Super Bowl next year. However, Tim is misguided, as Team X's QB is overrated.

The main conclusion: Tim's prediction is misguided
An intermediation conclusion supporting the main conclusion: Team X's QB is overrated.

Essentially, the intermediate conclusion functions the same way evidence does - it just isn't a demonstrable fact.

See it in action here: https://www.beatthegmat.com/bold-t113721.html

Yes-I partially agree with David. An intermediate conclusion, for most intents and purposes, is just like a premise. Unlike a premise, however, an intermediate conclusion is supported by premises of its own.

Here's a simple example.

John will arrive late for work. Accordingly, his boss will be angry with him.

-------------------------
Here we have a simple premise and a simple conclusion. Now let's convert the "John arrived late for work" into an intermediate conclusion.

Because John woke up late this morning, he will arrive late for work. Accordingly, his boss will be angry with him.
--------------------------

Fundamentally, the two arguments are the same. The only difference is now there are reasons to support the statement John will arrive late for work, making it an intermediate conclusion.