@YalaD The way I think about it is that the second sentence describes methods that could have produced support for the first claim, rather than stating the actual results of those methods.

In other words, it explains what they did, not what they found, so it does not support the claim because it presents no actual evidence.

An example of what I mean:

I baked the best pie.

I compared three different recipes.

This does not give me a reason why the pie is the best. It only explains what I did to arrive at that belief. However, if I say something like this:

I baked the best pie.

I baked three different recipes, compared their taste, and chose the one that tasted best.

Now I have evidence for why I baked the best pie: the results of my taste test.