>Then by definition, the conclusion cannot be as important as the reasoning...

Definition of which one?

I fail to see your logic here.

Premise: The conclusion cannot exist without reasoing
Conclusion: The reasoning is more important than answer

Is there an unstated premise?

When I use reasoning to find an answer to a problem, my goal is to find the answer. The answer cannot exist without the reasoning, true, but if I have reasoning and no answer I didn't achieve what I set out to do because it is impossible to present my answer. I see no reason to deem one more or less important than the other, and I can only assume that there is no difference in the importance of their existence in the process.