Note.  Just saying something like: "just because (here you summarize the reasons) doesn't show that (here you summarize the conclusion)" is not acceptable as an explanation!  Because this is not an explanation!  Saying that the reasons don't prove the conclusion does not explain why they don't!!!

1)  There are now new laws which require higher safety standards for Kentucky coal mines,

and which have stiff penalties for mine operators who don't meet the standards. The state

authorities now have to decide whether to enforce the new laws. We say, they should not be

enforced, due to the following considerations. Many small mining operations will be forced to

shut down if the laws are enforced, because the improvements needed to comply with the laws

are too costly. And if these small mines shut down, a lot of eastern Kentuckians will lose their

jobs. So more unemployment in the eastern part of the state will occur if the authorities enforce

the new laws. But what happens if the laws aren't enforced? If that happens, then there won't

be any big increase in unemployment. We say that the increase in safety isn't worth the price of

yet more unemployment; hence the new laws shouldn't be enforced by the state.
 
 

2)  Fossilized seashells can serve as thermometers of the ancient oceans in which those sea

animals lived. You see, there are two distinct forms (isotopes) of oxygen present in sea water,

and oxygen from the water is used by sea animals for building their shells. If it should happen

that the proportions of the isotopes which wind up in an animals' shell vary according to the

temperature of the water, and if ancient sea animals built up their shells in the same way as sea

animals do today, then chemical analysis of the ancient shells would give a pretty good idea of

the water temperature at the time the shells were formed. There's no doubt that the proportions

of the two isotopes in shells being formed today do correlate with water temperature, and it's

quite likely that it was the same way thousands or millions of years ago. And so there you have

the basic reasoning which shows that shells from sea animals of the distant past can tell us the

temperatures of the bodies of water in which they once lived.
 
 

3)  Here inference-indicator expressions are in red.

[   1    Switzerland and Norway are countries with standards of living which are just about

the highest in the world].  [  2   It is notable that both of them are democracies]. Thus [3  we

see that democracies have higher standards of living than non-democracies]. This connection

between prosperity and democracy raises a very interesting question: [  4   Is it their form of

government which has made nations that are democracies more prosperous than nations that

aren't, or [  5  is it the other way around]?    [  4   Is prosperity the economic reward which

results from democracy], or [  5   is democracy a luxury which is affordable by nations which

are already prosperous]?   A look at history answers the question.  [ 6   The high standards

of living in Norway and Switzerland were not achieved until a good many years after they

became democracies].   Thus [  4  it is democracy that produces prosperity], instead of

[   5   prosperity producing democracy].
__________________________________
As is typical with more complex and realistic arguments, there is no "the correct" way to diagram this one.  However, there are quite a few definitely wrong ways!  Key points are that [1] and [4] are conclusions because they follow "thus's,"  that [4] is the main conclusion, and that the two questions are not real questions, they are ways of presenting (and repeating for emphasis) two alternatives which form an "either-or" reason.  In addition, the [5] in the last sentence is not a significant part of the main conclusion.  Notice that there are no "if-then's"!  Here's one sensible way to do a diagram:

                                1  +  2
                                    ß ---- Invalid, weak, HG
                                     3             6
     Invalid, weak, FA --- ß             ß -------- Invalid, weak, HG and FC(Post Hoc)
                              (4  or  5)  +  not 5(unstated)
                                             ß -----------DD, valid, but FA
                                             4

However you do the details of the diagram, there are those three fallacies present.  HG because the argument goes from only two democratic countries to conclusions about democratic countries in general. FA because the two options presented aren't the only two that a reasonable thinker should consider (for example, prosperity due to big new markets for products could happen under other types of government not just democratic ones).  FC (Post HOC) because democracy occurring before prosperity (in 6) isn't nearly enough for concluding democracy caused prosperity (the same sort of example used with the FA explanation would also fit here).

4)  In this day and age medical progress is highly respected and we are inclined to overlook

the fact that medicine can lead to diseases as well as cure them. Disorders which are caused

by medical treatment are called "iatrogenic", and we can show that iatrogenic illness is a

major problem today by considering the things that have happened with heart disease.

Several generations ago there was no special emphasis on heart disease research and

treatment, and in those days heart disease was not nearly the problem it is today.  Then it

was nowhere near to being the leading cause of death - but today it is. We all know that

funds devoted to heart disease research and treatment have multiplied at a rapid rate over

the same period of time, and new methods of treatment such as bypass surgery and intensive

care units have been introduced.  Thus the increase in heart disease has paralleled the

increase in research and in new treatment methods. The appropriate conclusion to reach on

the basis of these trends is that the modern epidemic of heart disease is largely iatrogenic.
 
 

5) The latest idea to emerge from the feminist movement is that the quality of the time a

mother spends with her child is more important than the quantity. According to this "quality

time" view, a child suffers no harm from having a full-time working mother, provided that

the fewer hours she has to spend with her child are high-quality time. Writers in the child

care advice area are now supporting the quality-time idea and giving it a lot of publicity.

What goes mostly unnoticed is that just about every one of them has until recently

advocated the supreme importance of mothers spending lots of time with their children,

which is placing the emphasis on quantity-time! Thus these writers have done a quick

about-face, and they've contradicted themselves in the process. This ought to be enough

to convince all but the most nearsighted feminist that the quality-time idea is little more

than low-quality rubbish.
 
 

6)  Ragweed is a common wildflower in much of the U.S., but it is not found as far north as

Maine. The reasons why it won't survive in Maine are rather interesting. Ragweed is a

"photoperiodic" plant -- that is, it will not blossom until it gets just the right amount of daylight

each day. For ragweed, the right amount is almost exactly 14 and 1/2 hours of daylight. Thus

there will not be enough time before killing frosts for the plant to produce seed if the long

summer days do not shorten to 14 and 1/2 hours until late in the summer. And in Maine

the days don't become that short before the middle of August, which is near the end of the

brief northern summer. That's why any ragweed which might be growing there would be

unable to reseed itself. Hence even though birds or wind may bring the seed to Maine, the

plant could never become established there.