Reconstruct the following argument in this passage in its proper premise-conclusion format. Keep in mind that this argument may be a complex argument:
“Now, the light of nature reveals that there is at least as much in a complete efficient cause as in its effect. For where could an effect get its reality if not from its cause? And how could a cause give something unless it had it? It follows both that something cannot come from nothing and that what is more perfect—-that is, has more reality in it—-cannot come from what is less perfect or has less reality. This obviously holds, not just for those effects whose reality is actual or formal, but also for ideas, whose reality we regard as merely subjective. For example, it’s impossible for a non-existent stone to come into existence unless it’s produced by something containing, either formally or eminently, everything in the stone….Also, it’s impossible for the idea of heat or of stone to be in me unless it’s been put there by a cause having at least as much reality as I conceive of in the heat or in the stone.”