I need some help putting what I believe to be argument into standard form. The exercise was to determine whether the statement was an argument or an explanation ("because" of the obvious similarities in structure, geddit?) Anyway the set of claims were:
H. In a recession the best way for a government to keep the economy buoyant and keep people in jobs is to invest in infrastructure. The government’s austerity policy, with its constant rounds of cuts to the public sector, is deeply mistaken. It has to change or the country will sink into an economic depression the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the 1930s.
Which I assumed to be an argument because the statement doesn’t make the assumption that the reader already believes the conclusion presented, instead it provides suitable premises in order to persuade.
I've literally been introduced to these concepts today so forgive me if I'm completely wrong.
Should I still go?