If I had just watched this before doing my drill set I would've gotten a question right

@callofdutykaz Ong, JYs explanation pissed me off

@Benjaminrobert It seems as if its because the object isn't as important as the subject and the predicate verb. Yes, you could call out some things to be the object because it effects the subject, but its not like you need. Its equivalent to him breaking down each sentence to its referentials and referents, you don't need to break it all the way down, as long as you understand what the argument at its core is saying.

The way I understood the Scorsese sentence is similar to a reaction video to a reaction video of an apology video.

It makes sense why question 3 isn't an argument. Neither one of the statements expands on anything in the other to prove one of the other statements to be more likely true than it they already are.

The first statement, "Human Communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time," tells us that its a phenomenon that has been present for a long time.

The second statement, "Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras," doesn't support the notion that human communication is either a phenomenon nor that it has existed across different civilizations over time.

The trick is that the 2nd statement isn't specific enough to support the first statement to make it a conclusion. If it was more specific, the scenario in which it is an argument could be there.