Conclusive conjunctions are the opposite of causal conjunctions. That's quite logical. If one action / event is the cause of another action / event, this event is the consequence of the other event / action. Thereofore any causal clause can be converted in a consecutive clause and any consecutive clause can be converted in a causal clause.
He doesn't go to school because he is not in the mood to do it.
He is not in the mood, hence he doesn't go to school.
The relationship changes depending on the conjunction used and if we confuse causal conjunctions with consecutive conjunctions, something we actually never do, we get absurd sentences.
He doesn't go to school hence he is not in the mood to do it.
He is not in the mood, because he doesn't go to school.
That's trivial from a practical point of view. Nobody has any problem understanding the difference. However from a theoretical point of view it is not trivial at all, it is even completely incomprehensible. One can wonder why the human brain can deduce complex relationships between two action / events from a single word. In the case of a noun, table,chair, house etc.. we have, or at least we can have in case that it is necessary, somenting concret before our eyes. In the case of conjunctions we have pure abstractions, nothing concrete, however nobody, not even the most illiterate, has any problems to figure out the relationship between the main clause and the subordinate clause joined by a conjunction. The most stupid person on earth is more intelligent than any computer programm, because a computer programm understands only one relationship, a conditional relationship: If this is the case, do this, otherwise do that. The condition "while this is true, do this, otherwise that" is only a variation of this statement.
However the relationships are the same everywhere and therefore there is always a conjunction in the foreign language that corresponds to the conjunctions in the mother tongue. From a practical point of view it's therefore easy.