Welcome to Philosophy SE. I believe your argument can be reconstructed in two different ways.
The first way:
(P1) An ant releases a chemical when it dies, and its fellows then carry it away to the compost heap.
(P2) Apparently, the communication is highly effective.
(P3) If a communication is highly effective, then the consequent would be triggered even though the antecedent doesn't get satisfied properly.
(P4) A healthy ant painted with the death chemical is similar to the antecedent (being dead).
(lemma1) Therefore, a healthy ant painted with the death chemical would trigger the consequent.
(C) Therefore, a healthy ant painted with the death chemical will be dragged to the funeral heap again and again
Second, as Mauro ALLEGRANZA pointed out in the comment, the reconstructed argument would be like below, but I am a bit skeptical whether this is a good argument reconstruction.
(P1) When an ant dies, its fellows then carry it away to the compost heap.
(P2) When an ant pretends to die, its fellows then carry it away to the compost heap.
(P3) Faking death/pretending dead is not equivalent of being dead
(P4) This not equivalent action lead to the same reaction.
(C) Therefore, the communication is highly effective. [here communication refers to the ant\s fellows' reaction depending on the ant being/pretending dead]
Here, P3 and P4 are hidden premises.