SUBSET: Hennessy

SUPERSET: Cognac

Hennessy is sufficient to be a cognac, but not necessary. Cognac can be Remy Martin or more, but not necessary Hennessy.

According to my understanding, according to most of our examples most of the time a concession is usually follow with a conclusion. Because the author introduce the concession as an anticipation of what the other party might says to undermine their argument. to strengthen this concession the author quickly introduce the conclusion and support the conclusion with more premises. Does my reasoning right?

Concession looks very similar with context. Looking back the previous lesson, with the example provided, I don't see much difference. Concession comparing to context would be the oposite point of view of the author? Now, what about if the context in the argument is based on a research that is opposed the author's view? let's consider this Example: "According to the last survey by the Hollywood magazine new Star Wars movie is very popular. However we should watch the documentary since it's a limited theatrical release and the theater in our neighborhood happens to be screening it. Would the first sentence be considered as context instead of concession?