So I think I'm starting to get the point.

We started by doing a deeper dive into the grammar parts of a sentence, and that helped us determine different sections of clauses and sentences... But that was ultimately only done to have us be able to break down sentences into their core components. It was not about an academic view of a sentence, but rather an easier way to think about complex sentences.

Got it!

I'm shocked by this reaction. Plenty of professors I've taken have cursed in University in my Comp Sci program... And most days are in the office typically is filled with people cursing.

The video at the bottom gave a pretty stellar explanation of this. I was in the same boat. I wasn't exactly sure whether or not this was an argument.

The problem is:

Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras.

Doesn't lend any kind of support to:

Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time.

The premise could have been something like...

"Linguists have FOUND many languages from various regions and eras"

And that would help support the conclusion that Human communication is universal and exists across different civilizations....

Simply conducting research on traditional languages from various regions and eras doesn't support the claim of Universality that the conclusion lays out.

I would watch the video as well. I felt the answer there was pretty solid!