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?