When closed claims work, they're hypnotic. If my opponent believes a modern cancer treatment is actually a government program to control our minds, I might say:

Do the people who are trying to find evidence for this believe it's out there or is it more about not giving up on the search?

This is similar to "Do you want broccoli or green beans?" There's a good chance my opponent will be so focused on the choices I've presented that they'll implicitly accept my closed claim that there's not any evidence for this yet. They're still trying to find it.

I’m not an Antivaxxer, I’m just asking for vaccine safety. That’s all.

This is a classic closed claim of the Antivaxxer and it works so well due to its lack of sensationalism. To disagree with it would be to sound as if you question wanting to make things safe at all. To redefine the "anti" label as merely an activism for vaccine safety is a closure of the claim that vaccines aren’t rigorously tested for safety already. Compare this to the open claim,

I’m not an Antivaxxer, I just don’t trust pharma when they say vaccines are safe.

Now there is an open invitation: "why don't you trust Pharma?" And "why would vaccines not be safe?"

When did you stop beating your wife?

This is a classic example of the loaded question, a way of closing a claim within a question in order to incriminate the answer in advance. Any honest answer to "when" will confirm the individual was at one point beating their wife. The trickery looks obvious but it can go unnoticed. In 1996, Lesley Stahl interviewed U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeline Albright. In a question regarding U.N. sanctions on Iraq, Stahl asked Albright,

We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that is more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?

Albright later voiced her regrets on her answer saying she should have pointed out the flaws in the question itself. Instead she responded,

I think that is a very hard choice, but the price, we think, the price is worth it.

Which confirmed the framing of losses and gains in the terms Stahl set up. We're trained to respond to questions as stated as a matter of respect. The same "when did you stop…" style of closed claim happens when members of the press ask not "will you" but "are you prepared to" as in,

Are you prepared to tell 20% of your voters they won’t get their benefits?

Setting up our own measuring stick can close a claim.

John was the least sexist of the group.

Is a kind of "presupposition." It implies overall the members of the group are a bunch of sexists while making the contrary position sound like John should be promoted to a higher rank of sexism.

How many of the victims have you talked to face-to-face?

Depending on the context, this question can be used to close the claim that having face-to-face conversations with victims of an event would be a reasonable expectation, necessary to form an opinion on an event, or even closing the claim that the people identified are victims at all.

The study forgot to compare against subjects who had disease X.

Using just the word "forgot," This closes the claim that such a comparison would be needed and that the researchers knew better but didn't.

After she was proven wrong, she continued to talk about her work.

This "temporal presupposition" could be closing the claim on "her" being proven wrong at all, or that she was talking about her work after the supposed event.

Did the professor say this because of the money or to advance her career?

Constraining to two options, as well see more of later, closes a false dilemma. False dilemmas assert that the answer must be one of two provided options. The professor may have said what she said for any other benevolent reason. This also closes the claim that either money or career advancement were things to be gained by saying what the professor said.