The phrase "accept this conclusion" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when you want someone to agree with or acknowledge a specific conclusion that has been drawn from a discussion or analysis.
Example: "After reviewing all the evidence presented, I hope you can accept this conclusion as valid."
Alternatives: "acknowledge this conclusion" or "agree with this conclusion."
"I don't know what evidence they have to make this official announcement, and I don't know why they have chosen this timing... Without proper evidence, I would not accept this conclusion".
Widgery 2.30: "It is understandable that these circumstances have given rise to suspicion that the CO 1 Para [Colonel Wilford] exceeded his orders, but I do not accept this conclusion in the face of the sworn evidence of the three officers concerned".
To accept this conclusion, however, would introduce numerous complications into any theory of whether and how God reveals future contingents, and lead to untenable consequences (Tachau 2013: 93).
If the courts decide that Theseus 2 is the "real" descendant of Theseus 1, then we will have to accept this conclusion for all practical purposes.
Even if we are willing to accept this conclusion, the non-interference view of liberty commits us to others that are perhaps even more paradoxical.
But one could equally well accept this conclusion, emphasize that the reason here is greatly outweighed, and appeal to the pragmatics of reasons discourse to explain why it sounds odd to say there is such a reason (Schroeder 2005a).
Though not all astronomers accepted this conclusion at first, it was confirmed in the mid-1960s when the first robotic spacecraft soft-landed and sank only a few centimetres instead of disappearing completely into the regolith.
While accepting this conclusion, the paper argues that, in order to construct a more realistic landscape of indicators to inform copyright policy makers, the economic case of copyright needs to be broadened to include not only the direct producers of the work in its material form, but also the producers of the meaning and value of the work (the overall perception of its "quality").
Stevenson (1944: 154 159) accepts this conclusion as a consequence of his theory, but to the rest of us it seems a very large dead rat to swallow.
As noted above, unless the hidden structure argument is accepted, this conclusion is strongly suggested by examples like (2.4.1) ("The impact of my knee caused the tipping over of the inkwell") which appear to involve explanation without the explicit citing of a law or a deductive structure.
Literal application of our model would seem to render the evolution of cooperative cross-feeding nearly insurmountable in natural settings and lead to the conclusion that probably all natural cross-feeding is incidental but there are reasons against accepting this conclusion without further study.
