Did anyone else have difficulty locating the argument in Question 1?

Would question 2 not be an argument as the statements

"They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears."

"After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago."

"Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor."

supports the statement of

"One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species."

In comparison to the Tiger argument, the premises in this scenario were all over the place, where as in the Tiger statement there was one direct premise with a direct correlation.

@LawyerWilkins I was wondering the same thing! I am glad I was not the only one thinking this way.

did anyone else mistaken question 3 as an argument?

I figured that the second sentence could serve as a premise for the first sentence as it states there had been analyses on languages from different "eras" in contrast to the first sentences claim of communication being a phenomenon through civilizations over time.

Prove me wrong? I might be overanalyzing this

@GDatria715 This is exactly what I had gathered as well! very interesting indeed.

Hey my name is Khyber, I plan on taking the LSAT in June. If any one wants a study buddy let me know!

Is it just me or is the explanations a little confusing?