Arguing for the sincere offer of salvation

My favorite argument against the Sincere moral offer goes like this:

Unbeliever: "How can I be saved if Christ died only for some, and not all? Doesn't that mean that I'm in the same position as the demons? Doesn't it mean that even if I believe I won't be saved? I mean if I'm not elect then no provision for salvation was even made for me, right?"
Hyper Calvinist: "If you believe, you will find sufficient provision."
Moderate Calvinist: "If you believe you will find salvation" is only valid for the case where you are elect. Therefore you've told him a false statement. The actual conditional is: "If you are elect and you believe, you will find salvation."
Unbeliever: "Well then... how do I know I'm elect?"
Hyper Calvinist: "I told you, If you believe, you will find salvation."
Moderate Calvinist: "You have just equated election with belief. You just told him if he believes it will turn out he was elect."
Hyper Calvinist - "YES IF YOU BELIEVE YOU WILL BECOME ELECT!!1!!111!"

And that's it. Under Owenistic Limited Atonement the only way the non-elect can be saved is if they are elect, belief is irrelevant. But the hyper insists that it's possible in theory for them to be saved, which means it's possible for them to become elect. Which is both amusing and absurd.