There is a sentence that is missing in the paragraph below. Look at the paragraph and decide where (option 1, 2, 3 or 4) the following sentence would best fit.

Sentence: For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities.

Paragraph : (1). An argument can be defined as a complex symbolic structure where some parts, known as the premises, offer support to another part, the conclusion. Alternatively, an argument can be viewed as a complex speech act consisting of one or more acts of premising (which assert propositions in favor of the conclusion), an act of concluding, and a stated or implicit marker ("hence", "therefore") that indicates that the conclusion follows from the premises.. (2)_. The relation of support between premises and conclusion can be cashed out in different ways: the premises may guarantee the truth of the conclusion, or make its truth more probable; the premises may imply the conclusion; the premises may make the conclusion more acceptable (or assertible).(3)__. But depending on one's explanatory goals, there is also much to be gained from considering arguments as they in fact occur in human communicative practices.

To determine where the missing sentence fits best in the paragraph, let's analyze the flow of ideas and the transition words used in both the paragraph and the missing sentence.

First, let's look at the sentence to be inserted:
"For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities."

This sentence introduces a perspective where arguments are viewed as "freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities" (i.e., a theoretical, context-free view of arguments).

Now let's examine the sentences in the paragraph and where the insertion points are located:

Sentence 1 (before point 2): Defines arguments in two ways: either as a complex symbolic structure (premises supporting a conclusion) or as a complex speech act ( premising, concluding, and markers).
Sentence 2 (between points 2 and 3): Elaborates on the relationship between premises and conclusion (guaranteeing truth, making it probable, etc.). This continues the technical definition/structure of arguments.
Sentence 3 (after point 3): Starts with a contrastive transition: "But depending on one's explanatory goals, there is also much to be gained from considering arguments as they in fact occur in human communicative practices."

The word "But" at the beginning of the sentence after point (3) indicates a shift or contrast in perspective. It contrasts the idea of "considering arguments as they in fact occur in human communicative practices" (context-dependent, real-world activities) with an opposing idea.

For this contrast to make sense, the preceding sentence must describe the opposite perspective—namely, treating arguments as abstract, context-free, or freestanding entities. The missing sentence does exactly this by stating: "For theoretical purposes, arguments may be considered as freestanding entities, abstracted from their contexts of use in actual human activities."

Placing the missing sentence at (3) creates a logical transition:
1. First, we establish that arguments can be viewed abstractly as freestanding entities (the inserted sentence).
2. Then, we contrast this (using "But") with the benefits of viewing them as they occur in actual human communication practices.

Therefore, the sentence fits best at position (3).