I am having trouble with this question/answer. The conclusion is: if you drink caffeinated coffee, darker roast will irritate you stomach less than lighter roasts.

What does this have to do with extending the roasting time of coffee beans and increasing the amount of caffeine present in the brewed coffee?

Yes, it does mention that darker roasts are produced by roasting coffee beans longer. But it's just a trait of higher NMP. The higher the caffeine, the higher the roast, and a less irritated stomach.

Maybe I am confusing conclusions with which question helps evaluate the argument? The question doesn't seem to be related to having a more or less irritable stomach.

@DurodoluwaAina The "intermediate conclusion" is also called the "major premise." Following the "major premise," is another premise that supports it as a conclusion. This premise specifically leads into supporting the major premise. The major premise is different in that it receives support but is also support for the main conclusion. Hope this helps!

@Ula Adding to this, I think the key word "consequently" makes this an argument. If it was worded differently such as "The route is closed. No supplies will reach the island today. " then it would not be labeled as an argument. Two facts are being stated but do not seem related. The author is not making a point.

In this example, there is language used to bridge a premise and conclusion, making it an argument.