Conditional Statements and Inductive Arguments

Consider the following conditional statement to be true: "If argle-barg, then nanoo-nanoo."
Which statements below are true, concerning that conditional statement (there may be more than one right answer)?
1. Whatever 'argle-barg' is, that state of affairs or event can obtain in the absence of 'nanoo-nanoo'
2. Whenever 'nanoo-nanoo' is true, 'argle-barg' must also be true.
3. The conditional statement is true only when both 'argle-barg' and 'nanoo-nanoo' are true.
4. None of the above.
What do you know about a strong (good) inductive argument with all true premises (there really is more than one correct answer to this one)?
1. Adding a new premise to the premise set can weaken the likelyhood that the conclusion is true.
2. Adding a new premise to the premise set can make the argument valid.
3. Removing a premise from a valid argument can make the argument invalid.
4. Removing a premise from an inductive argument can weaken the conclusion.
A counter-example to a conditional statement is a substitution instance wherein:
1. The antecedent is shown to be false, and the consequent is shown to be true.
2. The consequent is shown to be false, and the antecedent is shown to be true.
3. Both the antecedent and consequent are shown to be false.
4. None of the above.