I'm still not totally convinced that question 3 is not an argument.

The second sentence doesn't PROVE that the first is true, but it is usable as a piece of evidence for it.

The first sentence entails:

Human Communication has existed across every civilization.

The second sentence entails:

Human communication has at least occurred in multiple civilizations in the world.

That second sentence can be used as a premise for the first, right?

It's a BAD argument with a dumb premise, but it's still an argument.

The same way I can say

"The boy ate the cookies, because the cookies are missing"

That's a terrible argument, but it's still an argument.