Suppose you believe that due to new legislation about digital marketing, it isn't possible to get helpful metrics ad campaign success. Nevertheless, Kartik makes this argument:

This argument won't convince you because you don't believe that digital marketing makes it easier to track ad campaign success. Sure, that digital marketing makes it easier to track ad campaign success, if true, makes it more likely that your team should focus on digital marketing. But since you don't think that it is true, the argument doesn't convince you.

To be more convincing, arguments often try to convince you not only of the conclusion of the argument, but also of the claims that are meant to convince you of the conclusion. Consider this argument:

Kartik now points out that clickthrough rates can be monitored in accordance with new regulations. That one can still track clickthrough rates makes it more likely that digital marketing would make it easier to track the success of ad campaigns. In a diagram, this can be visualized as follows:Kartik's new argument may convince you of its conclusion. It does so by also convincing you that digital marketing makes it easier to track the success of ad campaigns, which you were skeptical about before hearing his argument.

So, a claim in an argument may make any other claim in the argument more likely. To understand arguments, you need to figure out for each claim which other claim it makes more likely. To practice, take a look at the arguments below. Some include claims that make claims other than the conclusion more likely.