The authors of your book seem very nitpick here regarding the criterion of strongly cogent non-deductive argument. Your filled in premise "Baptists are raised to believe in God's existence" should be interpreted as "Baptists are raised to make believe in God's existence". Once understood the missing premise this way, make believe is like try to believe but the result may be either way. So your conclusion doesn't hold tightly, thus may be better classified as some rhetoric reason for why they believed in God, not as a cogent argument.

Your filled in premise "Baptists are raised to believe in God's existence" should be interpreted as "Baptists are raised to make believe in God's existence". Once understood the missing premise this way, make believe is like try to believe but the result may be either way. So your conclusion doesn't hold tightly, thus may be better classified as some rhetoric reason for why they believed in God, not as a cogent argument.

The authors of your book seem very nitpick here regarding the criterion of strongly cogent non-deductive argument. Your filled in premise "Baptists are raised to believe in God's existence" should be interpreted as "Baptists are raised to make believe in God's existence". Once understood the missing premise this way, make believe is like try to believe but the result may be either way. So your conclusion doesn't hold tightly.

The authors of your book seem very nitpick here regarding the criterion of strongly cogent non-deductive argument. Your filled in premise "Baptists are raised to believe in God's existence" should be interpreted as "Baptists are raised to make believe in God's existence". Once understood the missing premise this way, make believe is like try to believe but the result may be either way. So your conclusion doesn't hold tightly, thus may be better classified as some rhetoric reason for why they believed in God, not as a cogent argument.