I need to spend more time reading what is being asked. I interpreted the question as how strong is the argument, and on the basis of that I decided if it was an argument or not.

I thought this wasn't an argument because it's just stating a bunch of observations and linking them. None of the observations necessarily match because they don't remove doubt. I said no initially, but after I learned that arguments can be arguments even if they have doubt still.

So basically on the LSAT. An argument is an argument IF the author believes it's an argument. The premise does not necessarily need to logically support the conclusion, but if the author thinks the premise supports the conclusion, then it is an argument. Just not a very good one.