So in other words, it's not held as an argument because the purpose of the statements combined is to explain, not persuade? If the statements had been connected with "because" or "since" (or whatever other sort of similar bridge), then it would then become an argument where we could make an inference?

In going back from a few lessons ago: Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time. Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras.

I still don't understand why this isn't an argument then if the spectrum of support allows inferences to be made. From my thought process, the details of "from various regions and eras" in the premise allow me to make an inference that human communication has existed universally, across different civilizations, and over time. While it may not be an airtight inference, the chosen words in the premise do seem to infer the conclusion's truth.

From my understanding, "this is not a sustainable, long term solution" isn't the main conclusion, because the then sub-conclusion of "they should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately" doesn't logically provide the same level of context that the current setup provides. With "they should…" as the main conclusion, the sub-conclusion "this is not…" provides additional support as to why the restaurants should stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately.

In other words, why should they stop producing food waste and shut down operations immediately? Because this is not a sustainable, long term solution. On the other hand, why isn't this a sustainable, long term solution? Because they should stop producing food waster and shut down operations immediately.

The former is far more logical than the latter. Hope I explained it well!