I am thinking about the differences between explanation and argumentation, and i have come across this example which i just can't seem to understand.
Conversation A (Request for explanation):
Speaker: "It is possible that tomorrow will be a better day"
Hearer: "Why will tomorrow be a better day?"
Speaker: "Because if it wasn't possible for tomorrow to be a better day, then there would be no free will."
Conversation B (Request for argument):
Speaker: "It is possible that tomorrow will be a better day"
Hearer: "Why do you believe that tomorrow will be a better day?"
Speaker: "Because if it wasn't possible for tomorrow to be a better day, then there would be no free will."
The answers in conversation A, do not seem to fit in with the notion of explanation and truth, why is this?
Additionally, in conversation A, if the request was formulated along with the modality that was stated, "Why is it possible that tomorrow will be a better day?", the answers seem to result in the same reasons as conversation B where we question the belief, why does this happen too?