Consider the two claims of Kartik's argument that aren't the conclusion:

• Our target audience increasingly spends time online.
• Digital marketing makes it easier to track the success of ad campaigns.

These claims are meant to make you believe that the conclusion is true. They are sometimes called "reasons", "premises", or "evidence".

How are these claims supposed to convince you? The idea is that the truth of these claims makes the truth of the conclusion more likely. That's how arguments work: they convince you that some claim is true by drawing your attention to other claims that, if true, make the conclusion more likely. The person who makes the argument hopes that their audience will think to themselves: "Yes, I am now convinced that the conclusion is true, because I realize that claim 1 and 2 are true, and if they are true, then the conclusion is likely true as well". For example:

• That your target audience increasingly spends time online makes it more likely that your team should focus on digital marketing. After all, if your target audience increasingly spends time online, then digital marketing is better suited to get your ads in front of the right people.
• That digital marketing makes it easier to track the success of ad campaigns makes it more likely that your team should focus on digital marketing. After all, being able to better track the success of advertising will help your team do a better job allocating resources to the most impactful campaigns.