That’s not a particularly good argument.
Yes, the conclusion does follow from the 2nd premise. However, that second premise is what is usually in contention. You should not stipulate to a premise that your opponent is likely to reject.
Thus, I partially agree with @pnelson here. But only partially.
If we look at the original argument made by @Rumraket it doesn’t actually fit this form. It is more like:
The distinction here is that it is not an argument about what is. Rather, it is an argument about what we can reasonably expect.
To say it differently, it is not an argument about whether X is true. Rather, it makes a pragmatic case that the evidence supports X.
Science is not truth-seeking. Science is pragmatic.