I'm trying to translate an argument into sentential logic. It's of the form $$\text{sentence }1:\text{ } p\\\text{sentence }2: \text{ If so, then } q$$ What I want to know is, do I translate this as a single premise, i.e. $p\rightarrow q$, or as two premises, i.e. $1.$ $p$, $2.$ $p\rightarrow q$?
Edit: To clarify, the second sentence makes me wonder if $p$ is declared as true in the first sentence, or if it's really a conditional split into two (English) sentences.
Edit 2: Here's the full argument.
$$1.\text{ Either cats are the best animal or dogs are the best animal or snakes are the best animal.}\\2.\text{ If cats are not the best animal, then it will rain tomorrow.}\\3.\text{ But it will not rain tomorrow}\\4.\text{ The temperature will be warm tomorrow}\\5.\text{ If so, then dogs are not the best animal.}\\6.\text{ It follows that snakes are the best animal}$$
My confusion is with the interplay between $4$ and $5$.
Simple Statements (propositions):
Note: Line 1 is ambiguous but, with the assumption that "best" is unique, it can be interpreted as using the exclusive or connective.
$\boxed{\begin{array}{l|l|l} 1. & C\veebar D\veebar S &\text{ Either cats are the best animal or dogs are the best animal or snakes are the best animal.} \\ 2. & \neg C \to R & \text{If cats are not the best animal, then it will rain tomorrow.} \\ 3. & \neg R & \text{But it will not rain tomorrow} \\ 4. & W & \text{The temperature will be warm tomorrow} \\ 5. & W\to \neg D & \text{If so, then dogs are not the best animal.} \\ \hline 6. & \therefore S & \text{It follows that snakes are the best animal} \end{array}}$
PS: The argument is invalid, as $\neg C\to R, \neg R \vdash C$ by modus tollens (2,3), and we would require neither cats nor dogs to be the best to conclude that snakes are.
$C, \neg D, C\veebar D\veebar S \nvdash S$