Context: Philosophers usually treat emotions as nonrational.
MC: But emotion is not nonrational: it only seems that way because language lacks the ability to convey adequate conceptions of emotion.
Context can also be viewed as a phenomenon and the MC as an explanation. (Why do philosophers treat...? Because language lacks...)
Major Premise: The words we use to refer to emotions name only very general kinds of inner experience excitement, calm, joy, and so on.
Minor Premise: Thus, for example, there is no language for describing just how one joy differs from another.
"Thus, for example..." The example receives support (as indicated by "thus") but it also give support too (as examples generally do).
That specific instances illustrating a general claim (or principle) BOTH give and receive support to that general claim.
One can reason from general to specific and vice versa.
A
It is an example of the phenomenon that the argument seeks to explain.
B
It is the main conclusion of the argument.
C
It is a specific instance illustrating a general claim, thereby indirectly supporting the conclusion.
D
It is a concession to the view that the argument seeks to refute.
E
It is the explanation proposed for the phenomenon the argument seeks to explain.