Got it! Thank you very much.

That helped a lot! Thank you.

#help

What are the differences between the contexts and the contextual arguments?

#help

I saw both of the question 5s as a set of facts or discoveries from the others (a context), rather than the argument (premise+conclusion) neither from the nutritionist/environmentalist nor form the author.

Especially for question 5.2, it appears to me as a mere indication of a set of facts, rather than the argument (premise+conclusion). It is difficult for me to see the support relationship between the two sentences.

1. Could you please elaborate on how and why this is an argument? ;) and if it is argument, who's argument it is? (the author's or the other's?)

2. If it is an argument, is it because, if I ask Why do I have to believe that? to "It seems that almost all of this increase resulted from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes," the answer is, "Environmentalists have discovered that since the industrial revolution, there has been an increase in air pollution?"

(if the second sentence starts with "it follows that..." then, it is easier for me to assume it as the author's viewpoint/conclusion but "it seems that..." confuses me and makes me think that it is a mere set of contexts rather than an argument.)

3. Is it wrong if I say, that the conclusion is: "There has been an increase in air pollution."

and the Premises are: "Environmentalists have discovered that since the industrial revolution, there has been an increase in air pollution" AND "It seems that almost all of this increase resulted from fossil fuel combustion and industrial processes?"

#help

same question

This is insane! So much help, appreciated ;)

By the way for Q8: "Not all operational tracking studies are conducted to illustrate exact corporate returns on investment (a fact about the real world/premise). Hence (conclusion indicator), some of these studies are not reliable (another way of seeing this as the conclusion, maybe ask yourself, could this be argued against? It could!)."

How would you argue against the conclusion?

#help

For Q11.1:

"One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species. Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor. After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears."

Other than it being the scientists' argument, can this stimulus also be seen as background information and observation? just like the Q 6.1

Background information: "One method of dating the emergence of species is to compare the genetic material of related species. Scientists theorize that the more genetically similar two species are to each other, the more recently they diverged from a common ancestor."

Observations (of the scientists): "After comparing genetic material from giant pandas, red pandas, raccoons, coatis, and all seven bear species, scientists concluded that bears and raccoons diverged 30 to 50 million years ago. They further concluded that red pandas separated from the ancestor of today's raccoons and coatis a few million years later, some 10 million years before giant pandas diverged from the other bears."

So if I didn't misread, for the tiger example you analyzed, does that mean you translated, "Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet." into "Not every/Some mammals are not suitable pets."? Please correct me if I am wrong.

#help

1. Are we supposed to focus on the words in the conclusion sentence, like 'mammal' or 'suitable' in this case, when finding the missing links (assumption)?

2. In the case of this tiger example, are there only two assumptions that exist? or are there actually more other assumptions that could be found, but only two examples are provided for guidance?

3. Can factors such as to what extent of aggressiveness can also be challenged?

What about the 'tiger' being presented as a single example of a mammal animal alone enough to represent all mammals?

You saved my life; thank you so much.

If you don't mind me asking a few more questions, when you said to be careful with "context clues," does that mean I shouldn't assume the semantic fact (common sense, just like how 1+1=2) of how “Population growth -> increases the demand for housing” as true?

Or is it rather that I could still assume it as a fact but just be cautious not to derive an inherent connection?

#help

Also, does anyone have an easier way to distinguish whether it's a "non-argument at all" VS "very weak support"?

feel like I'm getting that it is not an argument but not exactly sure why.

#help

Population growth increases the demand for housing. Construction companies capable of building new houses are relatively few, while individuals in need of housing are many.

Could someone explain why the "Population growth increases the demand for housing." is not a conclusion?

If I ask, "Why? Why do I have to believe that?" to the statement "Population growth increases the demand for housing.", "Construction companies capable of building new houses are relatively few, while individuals in need of housing are many." supports the answer to the question and makes the reason to believe the conclusion, I reckon.

Is it because "Population growth increases the demand for housing." is an unconditionally natural fact?