In each question you are given an argument in which either a premise or the conclusion is implicit (i. e. implied but not stated.)
You must state the claim that is missing and indicate whether it is a premise or a conclusion.
1. I haven’t done much prep for this test, so I will find it difficult.
2. It’s a mark of a corrupt politician that they will spend most of their time in Washington meeting with special interest groups and business leaders. Sen. Gray seems to have plenty of time for golf and fancy dinners with corporate executives and lobbyists.
3. We wouldn’t imprison innocent humans solely for the purpose of performing painful experiments on them. Thus how can we justify doing that to animals?
4. To justify the induction, you need to appeal to a principle such as the uniformity of nature. But this is circular: our only evidence for the unity of nature is through induction.