I want to rehearse what Don Levi has done in trying to explain this idea of how we are to understand arguments.
In Part 1, I began by giving Levi's account of argument. He says,
"An argument is given when an arguer takes a position or stand on an issue and offers support or backing for it."
Levi tries to make his explanation of an argument clear by contrasting it with what he takes to be an explanation. He says,
"When you consider what is at issue, you can see what the difference is between, for example, an explanation and an argument.
I can tell you why your car is overheating. There is a leak in your radiator.
When my mechanic tells me this she is not arguing for the claim that the car is overheating. I brought the car to her because it was overheating; there is no controversy over that. When she explains to me why it is overheating, she is not giving an argument to establish that it is overheating. There may be a conflict over her explanation -- that is something we can argue about. But then an argument needs to be given for or against that explanation. However, the explanation itself is not an argument. The mechanic is not arguing that it is overheating, she is explaining why it is."
Don Levi, Critical Thinking and Logic, Sheffield Publishing 1990, page 27.
I've liked this example because it does seem to explain the difference between an argument and an explanation in terms of what we can say about what is at issue in each example. So, for an argument, the issue is a controversy. There is something still in doubt. In the example of an explanation, what is at issue is not a controversy. There is no doubt in Levi's example about the car overheating. The controversy comes in when you ask the question why it is overheating. The mechanic is supposed to answer this question.