@ruri623 It lowkey is, the fact that they have done comparative analyses of traditional languages directly implies that they have already discovered those languages. If someone said:

"Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras so therefore we know Human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time"

and you tried to argue by saying:

"that proves nothing, just because they did some comparative analyses on language from various regions and eras does not mean language from various regions and eras exists."

You would be laughed at because how can you do the analyses without the languages existing.

If the sentence included "We know" at the beginning and "because" at the beginning of the second sentence, its clearly an argument. So is the omission of these three words the only thing preventing this from being an argument?

Papi explicitly stated "they only have to sniff the air en route and/OR at the site to know the direction of home."

Therefore, Papi's argument goes something like this:

a. a pigeon who can sniff the air en route

AND/OR

b. can sniff the air at the release site

CAN

C. find its way home

the "correct' answer, to me, is actually evidence that his argument is correct. The pigeon in that case could not smell home at all, but according to Papi, that is not necessary, so I do not see, how something that is irrelevant to an argument, can weaken it.

That is like saying to get to an island, one must have a compass, and then trying to weaken that argument by saying "even people who could not physically see the island could still get there."

@Blurred_Lines I agree with you 100%. Papi explicitly stated "they only have to sniff the air en route and/OR at the site to know the direction of home."

Therefore, Papi's argument goes something like this:

a. a pigeon who can sniff the air en route

AND/OR

b. can sniff the air at the release site

CAN

C. find its way home

the "correct' answer, to me, is actually evidence that his argument is correct. The pigeon in that case could not smell home at all, but according to Papi, that is not necessary, so I do not see, how something that is irrelevant to an argument, can weaken it.

That is like saying to get to an island, one must have a compass, and then trying to weaken that argument by saying "even people who could not physically see the island could still get there."