There is an argument in this passage which ends with a conclusion that there is no God. In the standard form, the argument starts by defining who God is, giving the three things that are known about God and how each one of them should work in proving that God actually exists. However, from the discussion section, it emerges that there is evidence contrary to what is expected in the event that God was there. Though the argument ends at a rhetoric note, it is clear that the argument is aimed at proving that there is no God. The passage has a thesis, evidence, refutation and a conclusion on a controversial issue, which qualifies it to be an argument.
There is no argument in this case. All there is are two statements describing two related events. An argument should have a thesis, a discussion with some form of evidence and a conclusion which gives the final verdict. In this case, none of these can be seen. In fact, the two statements can be independent of each other and still make sense. No argumentation is seen in this case.
There is no argument in this case as well. Rather, there is a form of logical reasoning. It is well known that when it is raining, people are expected to carry umbrellas, as a matter of common sense. As such, the statement lacks an element of argumentation. For there to be an argument, there must be a situation in which there can be two opposing opinions. As such, an individual arguing for one opinion has to argue against the refutation of the statement. This element lacks in this passage as no one can refute the fact that when it rains outside some people carry umbrellas.