I got all of them correct except q#3. I couldn't understand it and maybe I still don't. Initially, the statement on human communication being universal etc. was my supposed conclusion and the linguist analysis was the premise because the linguist had languages from various regions and eras to study would mean that human communication has existed across different civilizations overtime. I think what makes it wrong is the word universally. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but I think when universally is used it translates to every language in this instance. So the supposed premise of" linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras" does not support the supposed conclusion that is the first sentence. Because this is just some or many not proof that human communication is a universal phenomenon. What do you guys think? If not then what exactly makes this question not an argument?