The articles we read won't always have a straightforward structure. Philosophers often provide auxiliary arguments, arguments for important premises they appeal to in support of their main conclusion. B and C are true, and if B and C are true, then A must also be true. It is generally accepted that B is true. However, it is controversial whether C is true.
Articles can be complex in other ways, too.
Not everything the author says will be a positive conclusion or a premise in support of his conclusion. Sometimes he'll be supporting his view with a thought-experiment. Sometimes he'll be arguing for a distinction which his positive view relies on. Sometimes he'll be arguing that another philosopher's views or arguments ought to be rejected. Sometimes he'll be defending a view against someobody else's objections.