Lots of ways work well.
The most simple and direct is to ask students to say what they think they've concluded from the discussion. You make a list of these on the board as students volunteer them. They don't have to be consistent with each other. Leave it to the students to synthesize.
Sometimes you'll have some summary remarks, some points you'd like to make at the end of class. That's fine, as long as you don't create a pattern in which students wait for you to unveil the magic "answers" at the end.
Similarly, I'd avoid using closing "takeaways" Powerpoint slides. If you do this regularly, it will undermine discussion. Students will take the official answers from you, rather than making their own judgments about synthesis from the discussion. Some students will be less inclined to contribute their ideas, figuring that it's your ideas on the takeaway slides at the end that really matter, or worried that the ideas they contribute might conflict with your official answers at the end.
I've sometimes asked one to three students at the beginning of class to keep track of what they think the conclusions from our discussion should be. In effect, they serve as listeners and synthesizers for the class. Then at the end of session, I ask these students to tell us what they've come up with. What they've heard and concluded from what they've heard. This can work brilliantly, or just okay.
You may also want to ask students to vote on where they stand, and use that to frame a closing discussion. That works especially well if you've asked them to vote early in the class and a lot of people have shifted their position. You can then ask someone who has shifted position to say why. This tends to produce nice conclusions.
I'm sure there are dozens of other good ways, these are just a few I use that come to mind.
About three pages into the play, Mr. Henderson (County Attorney) asks the sheriff if he had found anything important, anything that would "point to any motive." The sheriff replies that nothing had been found. At the end of the play, when Mr. Henderson, Hale, and the sheriff are coming downstairs, they still have not found any evidence pointing to a motive. In other words, they have found nothing that would indicate any reason why Mrs....
About three pages into the play, Mr. Henderson (County Attorney) asks the sheriff if he had found anything important, anything that would "point to any motive." The sheriff replies that nothing had been found. At the end of the play, when Mr. Henderson, Hale, and the sheriff are coming downstairs, they still have not found any evidence pointing to a motive. In other words, they have found nothing that would indicate any reason why Mrs. Wright would've had to kill her husband, or any reason why she chose to kill him the way that she did. He says to the sheriff (Peters):
No, Peters, it's all perfectly clear except a reason for doing it. But you know juries when it comes to women. If there was some definite thing. Something to show--something to make a story about--a thing that would connect up with this strange way of doing it--
Henderson and the other two men ignore the "trifling" evidence. The women pay attention to the so called trifling details and they discover the motive. Aside from the fact that Mr. Wright was not a kind husband, they find clues, most notably the remains of a strangled bird. This is fairly sound evidence of a motive. The women conclude that Mr. Wright strangled the bird. The women conclude that strangling Mr. Wright was her retaliation, but they sympathize with her and that's why they hide the evidence.