I don’t think they do. But that should not be in dispute. The point of a logical argument is to achieve complete clarity about the premises and the way they imply the conclusion.
I added two lemmas to clarify. I guess you could quibble with lemma 2, I think it does follow if we assume that we know or at least can know premise 3, but that seems plausible if you’re willing to accept it as a premise at all.
There are gaps in the argument, then.
My premises imply the conclusion. You might not like some of the premises, perhaps.
I don’t think they do. But that should not be in dispute. The point of a logical argument is to achieve complete clarity about the premises and the way they imply the conclusion.
I added two lemmas to clarify. I guess you could quibble with lemma 2, I think it does follow if we assume that we know or at least can know premise 3, but that seems plausible if you’re willing to accept it as a premise at all.
I could break it up into more steps if it’s not entirely clear that the premises imply the conclusion.