While you’re working on your first assignment, I can’t resist interrupting with something equally interesting but not particularly relevant.

This ad from the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) is not altogether clear about its intentions and therefore invites speculation.

It features the photographs of six convicts serving life sentences with no chance of parole. It makes several claims, but leaves it to the reader to draw conclusions. This familiar form of argument can be particularly persuasive since it’s hard to refute a conclusion we draw ourselves. The ad says:

1. These individuals did not commit violent crimes
2. They all got life (with no chance of parole) sentences
3. Criminal justice should be smart and fair
4. The ACLU opposes extreme, inhumane, costly sentences
5. The ACLU opposes mass incarceration.

The conclusions I presume the ACLU wants me to draw are that the six individuals are victims of a justice system that is not smart or fair, and that their life sentences are extreme and inhumane.

The conclusion may very well be correct, but its logic depends on an entirely unstated premise without which the deduction fails utterly.

Riddle 01: What is that unstated premise?