Below you will find help with selected exercises from the book.

2-3, 4. That cat is used to dogs. Probably she won't be upset if you bring home a new dog for a pet.
       The conclusion that she probably won't be upset by a new dog is based on the stated premise (i.e. she's used to dogs), as well as the unstated premise that she's not likely to get upset about the things she's already used to.

2-3, 10. Let's see… if the clunk only comes when I pedal, then the problem must either be in the chain, the crank, or the pedals.
       This conditional claim presupposes an unstated premise and an unstated conclusion. Unstated premise: The clunk only comes when I pedal. Unstated conclusion: The problem must either be in the chain, the crank, or the pedals. The result is a valid argument because the unstated premise affirms the antecedent of the conditional.

2-4, 9. We shouldn't take a chance on this new candidate. She's from Alamo Polytech, and the last person we hired from there was rotten.
       There is a fallacy here. One can't infer that everyone from Alamo Polytech is rotten just because one person was. That's a hasty generalization. The conclusion that we shouldn't take a chance on the new candidate doesn't go through given the stated premise plus the unstated hasty generalization.

2-9, 4. A: True by definition, i.e. the definition of the unit of measure called a "foot," and the quantities "6" and "5."

2-13, 4. They really ought to build a new airport. It would attract more business to the area, not to mention the fact that the old airport is overcrowded and dangerous.
       One judgment call here: whether to break the last premise stated into two: The old airport is overcrowded, and the old airport is dangerous. Given that an airport may become dangerous for reasons aside from its overcrowding, these are really separate points. The speaker is giving three independent reasons for accepting the conclusion.