Analysis of the time series data showed that the average annual growth rates of total assessed values, in real terms, were inversely related to distances from the plants, and that growth in sales for the years following plant construction were higher than for the years before plant construction, with the largest growth rate observed in the host municipalities. Multiple regression analysis of the cross-section data explained about 80% of the variation in housing prices. The plants exerted no influence on the price of housing, so the original hypothesis is rejected. Most people in the areas studied apparently have little fear over plant-related health and safety factors, and the presence of a plant does not in itself influence residential location decisions. Lower tax rates in host municipalities may even encourage development.
Never apologize for or otherwise undercut the argument you've made or leave your readers with the sense that "this is just little ol' me talking." Leave your readers with the sense that they've been in the company of someone who knows what he or she is doing. Also, if you promised in the introduction that you were going to cover four points and you covered only two (because you couldn't find enough information or you took too long with the first two or you got tired), don't try to cram those last two points into your final paragraph. The "rush job" will be all too apparent. Instead, revise your introduction or take the time to do justice to these other points.