Hey guys, I'm having a hard time figuring out what's going on in some of these passages.
Has anyone taken a class like this? Analyzing arguments and what makes them an argument?

I have three passages I'm supposed to analyze: is each an argument, an explanation, both, or neither?
Keep in mind I have no idea if my professor is trying to trick me, because one of them seems like it may be a trick question.

---

A generation ago, my college peers and I would buy a pint of ice cream and down a shot (or two) of peach schnapps to process a breakup. Now some college students feel suicidal after the breakup of a four-month relationship. Either ice cream no longer has the same magical healing properties or the ability to address hardships is lacking in many members of this generation.
(From �A prescription for helping millenials grow up,� by Brooke Donatone, Washington Post 7 January 2014, E4.)
I thought this was an argument. I ask why I should believe that the ability to address hardships is lacking in our generation, not what the cause of that lack of ability is.

[Michael Moore] favored raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, arguing that the cost to companies would be more than compensated for by the savings to society.
�If the person living next to you is making $40,000 a year, what are the chances he�s going to break into your house and steal your color TV? None, right? Unless he�s a kleptomaniac,� he said.
(From a 1997 article in the Richmond Times-Dispatch about filmmaker Michael Moore.)
Totally unsure on this one. Leaning toward explanation. I feel like he may be tricking me because he literally uses the word "arguing." But is it an explanation? What is being explained? Or is this whole thing an argument? What's the conclusion I'm supposed to accept?

�An empty head is not really empty; it is stuffed with rubbish. Hence the difficulty of forcing anything into an empty head.� �Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition.
I thought this was an argument, but my friend is telling me it may also be an explanation. The way I see it is this:
1. An empty head is not really empty.
2. An empty head is stuffed with rubbish.
3. It is difficult to force anything into an empty head.
(1 + 2) --> 3

---

Any thoughts?
I feel like I may just be overthinking things. This class is easy to understand in lecture, but when it comes to applying it myself, I get totally lost.


Will totally +rep if you can give me some insight.