@hsuyt25 Hi!

"which indicate that they are actually under additional stress" is a conclusion because it is supported by "microchips embedded under their skin reveal elevated blood pressure and increased heart rate"

The fact that these microchips embedded under their skin reveal elevated blood pressure and increased heart rate SHOWS us that they are actually under additional stress... it supports our conclusion.

A way to think about it is asking why/what. This indicates that they are actually under additional stress? Why is this indicated? What indicates it? Well, "the microchips embedded under their skin which reveal elevated blood pressure and increased heart rate."

"Which indicate that they are actually under additional stress" can't be a premise because it is not supporting anything. It's not evidence for anything. If there were an additional sentence, for example "and therefore, that's why they are losing their fur", then this additional stress would explain why they are losing their fur, and would serve as evidence.

I hope this helps! Let me know if I can clarify it further!

@devinkey06 You can have a LR question that asks for the main point or a flaw and the question might look something like the ones in this lesson.

@sanie.sahand @ellaflynn2004 This is how I thought of it:

It's saying that linguists have conducted comparative analysis in various regions and eras, but it's not saying that they actually found anything. You're making an assumption that they found something, but that's not clearly stated.

If it said something along the lines of "Linguists have conducted many comparative analyses of traditional languages from various regions and eras. These analysis suggested that/based on these analysis, human communication is a universal phenomenon that has existed across different civilizations over time", then you would have some evidence/support for the conclusion based on the analysis. I don't think it would be a very strong argument if it was written like this, but there would be some support for the conclusion.

I don't know if that is necessarily the right way to think about it, but I hope that helps a little bit :)