There are various potential ways to define path-component, for example:
Definition: The path-components of $X$ are those path-connected subsets $Y$ such that any $Z$ with $Y \subsetneq Z \subseteq X$ is not path-connected.
Here it is immediate that path-components are path-connected, but unfortunately, it is not immediate that path-components exist in the first place.
Definition: The path-components of $X$ are the sets of the form
$\{y \in X \mid \exists$ a path from x to y$\}$, where $x \in X$.
Here the existence is immediate, but proving that path-components are indeed path-connected requires a (very simple) proof.
To make a notion such as path-component really useful, one wants to prove that both definitions actually are equivalent.