my hypothesis is disney is strongest because there is evidence of walt offering requsite propitations because those who offered mickey something have a pass the rest dont.
i think tigers is second strongest because it supports the claim not every mammal is pet suitable.
and trash is weakest because as you already mentioned all these claims suggest the conclusion but are not definitive.
I ordered them correctly. I think some arguments are stronger than others because their premises are stronger. They could be stronger due to stronger language and or more detail given.
I ordered them correctly. I tried to be as skeptical as possible and find something wrong with each argument. My reasoning for Tiger being the strongest argument was how the author said "all other members must prostrate," meaning that Walt had to have given propitiations, or else there would be a fundamental flaw in the argument due to that must.
Just because a mammal is aggressive and can cause injury, does that fully mean it is not suitable to be a pet? What if we kept the Tiger secluded in the backyard under maximum security? What if we found mechanisms to feed and take care of the tiger without being in close proximity? While relatively unrealistic, I figured that a Tiger could still be kept as a pet under certain conditions, so the argument seemed a little weaker than Walt's.
For the Trash Bin, what if someone else tipped it over and the Cat simply ate the contents off the ground? Is licking his paw to clean his face ALWAYS preceded by having eaten? This argument, to me, had too many potential questions.
well alright, alright, alright... I ordered them correctly. Would like to know how to "attack"? or point out what the flaws are of the cat argument.
Argument = premise + conclusion
But not all arguments are the same; it is a gradient strong <-----> weak.
Since I am new I don't really know how to say something is strong or weak, but I am going to guess with the cat is that you are inferring more? Like, burden of proof in law?
The premises do support the conclusion, but it seems there could be alternatives or maybe... better premises?
The Disney example is the strongest because it has the strongest supporting information (The author gives us multiple premises that support the conclusion).
The tiger example is in the middle because we are not given enough premises.
The trash bin example is a weak argument because the author hypothesizes a lot and looking at this example, I can tell the author is giving us a lot of assumptions.
what was most important for me to understand is why the Tiger Argument was the middle- not strongest, not weakest. i think this is due to the lack of definitions present in the argument. sure, we understand tigers are mammals, and that people would not want a pet that is aggressive/can cause serious injuries, but the text does not support that at all. there is however no evidence suggesting otherwise (unlike what is in the Trash Bin Argument), but still lacks the definitions present in the Disney Argument.
: Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club & has a Genie+ Pass. There is only two ways to obtain the Genie+ Pass (For Disney Vacation Club Members).
Walt has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything before. Due to this fact, It directs to the Conclusion: Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey.
(Has strong evidence and support for the conclusion.)
Tigers
It directly gives support to the Conclusion itself.
But compared to the Disney Club Vacation, it only has one support for the conclusion.
Trash Bin
It seems like it has multiple premises that supports the conclusion well. But, it's all assumptions.
Imagining in a world 'If' I was a judge. While looking through evidence. When I read the Disney Vacation Club it seems to add up perfectly for the conclusion. For Tigers I would have thought that's pretty much supporting. While reading the Trash Bin I would personally think the evidence is weak due to the fact every premise is an assumption.
Some arguments are stronger than others because they are easier to prove or harder to prove and the evidence supports them. Also, they do not have unstated assumptions, and all of the supports are clearly laid out to follow one after the other. The Disney Vacation club is the strongest because we know all of the necessary things to access the fast pass membership, and we know that if Walt did not do one of them but is still a member, then he must have done the other. Also, the tiger argument is the second strongest because it may rely on one unstated assumption: animals that are aggressive and can cause serious injuries are not suitable pets. The final argument is the least strong because there are no qualifier words to tell us the strength of the premises, and we do not know if he did it intentionally, or whether he did it at all.
1- The Disney argument is the one which offers the strongest support given that there are but two possible channels through which Walt could have obtained the Genie+ membership; it is either channel A or channel B.
2- The Tiger arguments should be in the middle given that it takes one instance or example of all mammals to explain why not every mammal is not fit for becoming a pet. Rather than addressing the reasons for which some mammals themselves are unfit for becoming pets, the author resorts to an example, which is indeed illustrative - but it falls short on giving a reason, again, on why some mammals are unfit for becoming pets.
3- The Trash argument is the weakest one because there could have been a centillion reasons why the trash bin got toppled - imagination here can roam free and we can lay out any scenario which would clear Mr. Fat Cat of any blame whatsoever.
The support for the trash bin argument relies on support of the previous premise in a sequence, making it more suggestive, therefore making the evidence suggestively weak, whereas the Disney argument is based on a logically sound premise, together generating strong evidence.
The tiger argument relies on inductive rather than deductive reasoning and is more general, with a broader conclusion instead of specific evidence.
The Disney argument uses strong support as well as multiple supports in order to support the conclusion. While the cat conclusion is based off of assumptions.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it has an air-tight conclusion from the evidence provided in the to the conclusion that this statement must be true.
The tigers argument can be disproven by providing evidence of one other mammal that can be used as a pet
The cat argument is the weakest because nothing directly links the cat to knocking over the trash can
The Disney argument is the strongest because it is a deductive argument. The truth of the premises guarantees the conclusion. With 100% certainty.
While the tiger and cat arguments are both inductive. The truth of the premises provide a degree of probability that the conclusion is true.
The tiger argument is stronger than the cat argument because the premise offers a higher probability that the conclusion is true. This is because for the cat argument, there are so many other explanations as to who knocked over the trash that are very possible and likely, which is not known to the detective. The tiger argument, one thing I can imagine that weakens the argument is that people have domesticated tigers, however it is not common, and there is always a degree of danger and risk if you keep a tiger as a pet, even if it’s domesticated. So the argument is still strong, but not certain and 100% like the Disney one.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it must be true. We know that one of two things (A and B) must be true. We are told that A is not true. Therefore, B must be true.
The tiger argument gives us a statement and then provides an example of that statement. Not all mammals are suitable pets (so: at least one mammal is not a suitable pet). If tigers can cause injury, then we have at least one mammal that isn’t a suitable pet. I think this argument is weaker because, even though we can assume, we don’t know that a dangerous mammal can’t be a suitable pet. We could question what is meant by suitable.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because there are many ways in which the argument could be disproven. For example, we could argue that the cat did eat the salmon. But him being perched on the counter and licking his paw does not necessarily mean that he toppled over the bin. It could have already toppled over and then he decided to eat the salmon.
Disney Vacation Club offers only 2 ways to get Genie+ pass. So, if Walt didn't get it one way, he must have gotten it through the other way. There is no room for possibility of other methods.
Tigers is strong but it can still be challenged. It's not an ironclad argument entirely.
Trash Bin is weakest of the three. It has a lot of room for possibility. The premises of"Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter or he is licking his paw to clean his face" don't fully increase the strength of support for the conclusion. There are still ways to get to the conclusion, not necessarily by the premises the author provides.
The Disney argument is the strongest argument, even though each premise does not individually support the conclusion.
It sets up the claims that here are 2 specific ways that Disney Vacation Club members can receive their Genie+ passes. If Mickey did not receive his pass from meeting the requirement from 1 of the 2 ways, then he must met the requirement of the other. Without indication of those requirements, the conclusion (Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to mickey) would not be supported, since there is no indication that by not doing "X" he must have done "Y". All claims together help strengthen the conclusion by linking one fact to another, showing that without X then the other option must be Y on the basis that there are no other ways of receiving a pass.
The Tiger argument is still a strong argument, however, its truth is solely based on one claim. The claim strongly suggest that since tigers are animals that are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, one can deduce that there is at least 1 example of a mammal that is not suitable to keep as a pet. It is not as strong as the Disney argument because it does not directly state that mammals must be X to be suitable as a pet. Since there are no specific conditions that must be met to make the conclusion absolute, then this arguments claim is more of a suggestion than it is a matter a fact.
The Trash Bin is the least strongest argument because there are many flaws in the claims. For example, it is possible the cat had eaten something that was not from the trash, which is why they were licking their paw the same way they usually do when they eat. Furthermore, the cat COULD have eaten the fish after the bin had toppled over, but that doesn't necessarily mean the cat had knocked over the bin at all, nevertheless intentionally. Although, there is a conclusion (cat is the culprit) and claims (cats behavior + evidence of the mess) there are lots of gaps between the evidences.
The Disney argument is the strongest because the premises provide only two options for the fast pass. Another claim states that Walt has not completed one of those options, therefore, he must have completed the other option to obtain his fast pass. The passage does not provide any other option to obtain a fast pass, so the conclusion is fully supported.
The Tiger argument is the second strongest because although the premise that tigers are aggressive does support the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, the argument still leaves room for questioning. (1) Are ALL tigers aggressive? (2) Does someone want an aggressive pet?
The Big argument is the weakest because although the cat's actions/appearance support the argument that he knocked over the bin and ate the fish, it too leaves room for questioning. (1) What if the cat just ate his dinner? (2) What if the cat was simply cleaning himself (beyond his regular routine of doing so after eating). There could be many other reasons why the cat is doing what he is doing that could not support the fact he ate the leftovers.
Disney is the strongest because there are only two ways to access the Genie pass. Walt did not prostrate himself which was one of the ways to get the pass so he must have offered ten goats - this was the other way to get the pass. Therefore, this is the strongest argument.
Tigers is in the middle because tigers are dangerous but this argument can be challenged because there are some tame tigers out there and these are the ones tamed by humans so they could keep them as pets.
The trash bin is the weakest argument because it does not address the fact that it could have been a toddler or a dog that spilled the trash bin so it leads to the cat being the culprit.
Disney is the strongest because its premises directly support the conclusion. Tigers is in the middle because the support is there but its not fully closed off, so it can be challenged. Trash bin is the weakest because there it assumes there is not other explanations for the situation (which is a flawed argument)
Disney: It's the strongest because the many premises show that Mr. Walt could have only done one of two things. Since we know he didn't do Thing A, we can more confidently say he did Thing B. Sure, there could be a third option that he secretly did but it would be harder to prove if more information/evidence didn't come up.
Tigers: On the surface, it's strong but holes can be poked into it. At first I thought it was the strongest because it says [Not every mammal is suitable] so all you have to do is prove that even ONE mammal is NOT and you've won your argument. However, the premise was that tigers are [aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people]. While that's true, one could say that dogs are aggressive AND can cause serious injuries to people YET, most people think they're still suitable as pets. (Don't come for me, I like dogs lol but I used it as an example because more people have dogs as pets versus something like snakes). Then if I really wanted to drive it home and make my opponent's theory fall apart, I'd start diving into the wording. Just because they CAN cause serious injuries to people doesn't mean they will. Dogs can but they don't always so maybe you can domesticate a tiger the same way you can a dog. I'd then jump into numbers and ask them what the stats are of people who get attacked by dogs and so on and so forth. So yes, it's stronger than the Trash Bin one but not strong enough to be conclusive.
Trash Bin: This is the weakest one of the bunch. If you are to have a POV of a court room while this was on trial, one would say that the evidence is circumstantial at best and the Detective is hoping the jury lean's into their bias to convict Mr. Cat lol. Just because he licked his paw the way he usually does after eating doesn't mean that he was eating. Now, if someone said "Mr. Cat ONLY licks his paw after he eats", that would make a stronger argument. If I were Mr. Cat's attorney, I'd argue that the only thing the detective was able to prove is that people[animals lol] really can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think that the trash bin argument is the weakest because it hinges on two very weak premises for support one being the cats proximity to the trash bin and two being the licking of its paw to clean its face. they are both very weak due to the ability to undermine the claims, the cat could be licking its paw for a plethora of reasons and it could be near the trash can after it spilled. the Disney argument I believe is the strongest because in this world there are only two ways to access the fast pass, the passage doesn't talk about any other way. either the goats or goofy so if not goofy then it has to be the goats. Sure it could be other ways but in previous lessons there was mention of it being true for this world and in this world there are only two absolute ways to access the fast pass.
The Trash Bin argument assumes the cat is the only possible culprit due to its presence in the area. It ignores the possibility that somebody else could have been nearby and toppled the garbage, or that the cat could have eaten their own food. It implies the cat must be (1) hungry and (2) the only possible individual that could have knocked over the trash bin.
The tiger argument is more solid; it could be amplified with more details, but the premise ties directly into the conclusion.
I did, however, make the mistake of thinking that the Trash Bin argument was more solid than the Tiger argument. I assumed that because the Trash Bin argument had more premise behind the conclusion, that it would equate to the argument being stronger. However, I realized after reading some comments that the argument was not amplified by the additional premises, if anything that allowed more doubt to be raised against the argument of the cat being the culprit.
I put it this way for myself, I would have a harder time defending the Tiger then I would defending the cat.
1
Topics
PT Questions
Select Preptest
You've discovered a premium feature!
Subscribe to unlock everything that 7Sage has to offer.
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to get going. Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you can continue!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you came here to read all the amazing posts from our 300,000+ members. They all have accounts too! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to discuss anything!
Hold on there, stranger! You need a free account for that.
We love that you want to give us feedback! Just create a free account below—it only takes a minute—and then you’re free to vote on this!
Subscribers can learn all the LSAT secrets.
Happens all the time: now that you've had a taste of the lessons, you just can't stop -- and you don't have to! Click the button.
289 comments
support is gradient
some are weak some are strong
my hypothesis is disney is strongest because there is evidence of walt offering requsite propitations because those who offered mickey something have a pass the rest dont.
i think tigers is second strongest because it supports the claim not every mammal is pet suitable.
and trash is weakest because as you already mentioned all these claims suggest the conclusion but are not definitive.
I ordered them correctly. I think some arguments are stronger than others because their premises are stronger. They could be stronger due to stronger language and or more detail given.
I ordered them correctly. I tried to be as skeptical as possible and find something wrong with each argument. My reasoning for Tiger being the strongest argument was how the author said "all other members must prostrate," meaning that Walt had to have given propitiations, or else there would be a fundamental flaw in the argument due to that must.
Just because a mammal is aggressive and can cause injury, does that fully mean it is not suitable to be a pet? What if we kept the Tiger secluded in the backyard under maximum security? What if we found mechanisms to feed and take care of the tiger without being in close proximity? While relatively unrealistic, I figured that a Tiger could still be kept as a pet under certain conditions, so the argument seemed a little weaker than Walt's.
For the Trash Bin, what if someone else tipped it over and the Cat simply ate the contents off the ground? Is licking his paw to clean his face ALWAYS preceded by having eaten? This argument, to me, had too many potential questions.
The tiger argument is missing the premise that aggressive animals aren't suitable as pets
well alright, alright, alright... I ordered them correctly. Would like to know how to "attack"? or point out what the flaws are of the cat argument.
Argument = premise + conclusion
But not all arguments are the same; it is a gradient strong <-----> weak.
Since I am new I don't really know how to say something is strong or weak, but I am going to guess with the cat is that you are inferring more? Like, burden of proof in law?
The premises do support the conclusion, but it seems there could be alternatives or maybe... better premises?
The Disney example is the strongest because it has the strongest supporting information (The author gives us multiple premises that support the conclusion).
The tiger example is in the middle because we are not given enough premises.
The trash bin example is a weak argument because the author hypothesizes a lot and looking at this example, I can tell the author is giving us a lot of assumptions.
i accidentally read comments before - but
disney has a lot of details that support the conclusion.
tiger has language that insinuates what is true and therefore supports the conclusion
trash bin has circumstancal/indirect evidence to support the conclusion. the support is there but its not as surefire
what was most important for me to understand is why the Tiger Argument was the middle- not strongest, not weakest. i think this is due to the lack of definitions present in the argument. sure, we understand tigers are mammals, and that people would not want a pet that is aggressive/can cause serious injuries, but the text does not support that at all. there is however no evidence suggesting otherwise (unlike what is in the Trash Bin Argument), but still lacks the definitions present in the Disney Argument.
I like think things simplistic as possible.
Disney Vacation Club:
Has multiple premises (Support)
It supports directly to the conclusion.
: Walt is a member of the Disney Vacation Club & has a Genie+ Pass. There is only two ways to obtain the Genie+ Pass (For Disney Vacation Club Members).
Walt has never prostrated himself to anyone or anything before. Due to this fact, It directs to the Conclusion: Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to Mickey.
(Has strong evidence and support for the conclusion.)
Tigers
It directly gives support to the Conclusion itself.
But compared to the Disney Club Vacation, it only has one support for the conclusion.
Trash Bin
It seems like it has multiple premises that supports the conclusion well. But, it's all assumptions.
Imagining in a world 'If' I was a judge. While looking through evidence. When I read the Disney Vacation Club it seems to add up perfectly for the conclusion. For Tigers I would have thought that's pretty much supporting. While reading the Trash Bin I would personally think the evidence is weak due to the fact every premise is an assumption.
Evidence wise, it would be
Disney> Tigers> Trash Bin
Some arguments are stronger than others because they are easier to prove or harder to prove and the evidence supports them. Also, they do not have unstated assumptions, and all of the supports are clearly laid out to follow one after the other. The Disney Vacation club is the strongest because we know all of the necessary things to access the fast pass membership, and we know that if Walt did not do one of them but is still a member, then he must have done the other. Also, the tiger argument is the second strongest because it may rely on one unstated assumption: animals that are aggressive and can cause serious injuries are not suitable pets. The final argument is the least strong because there are no qualifier words to tell us the strength of the premises, and we do not know if he did it intentionally, or whether he did it at all.
1- The Disney argument is the one which offers the strongest support given that there are but two possible channels through which Walt could have obtained the Genie+ membership; it is either channel A or channel B.
2- The Tiger arguments should be in the middle given that it takes one instance or example of all mammals to explain why not every mammal is not fit for becoming a pet. Rather than addressing the reasons for which some mammals themselves are unfit for becoming pets, the author resorts to an example, which is indeed illustrative - but it falls short on giving a reason, again, on why some mammals are unfit for becoming pets.
3- The Trash argument is the weakest one because there could have been a centillion reasons why the trash bin got toppled - imagination here can roam free and we can lay out any scenario which would clear Mr. Fat Cat of any blame whatsoever.
The support for the trash bin argument relies on support of the previous premise in a sequence, making it more suggestive, therefore making the evidence suggestively weak, whereas the Disney argument is based on a logically sound premise, together generating strong evidence.
The tiger argument relies on inductive rather than deductive reasoning and is more general, with a broader conclusion instead of specific evidence.
The Disney argument uses strong support as well as multiple supports in order to support the conclusion. While the cat conclusion is based off of assumptions.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it has an air-tight conclusion from the evidence provided in the to the conclusion that this statement must be true.
The tigers argument can be disproven by providing evidence of one other mammal that can be used as a pet
The cat argument is the weakest because nothing directly links the cat to knocking over the trash can
The Disney argument is the strongest because it is a deductive argument. The truth of the premises guarantees the conclusion. With 100% certainty.
While the tiger and cat arguments are both inductive. The truth of the premises provide a degree of probability that the conclusion is true.
The tiger argument is stronger than the cat argument because the premise offers a higher probability that the conclusion is true. This is because for the cat argument, there are so many other explanations as to who knocked over the trash that are very possible and likely, which is not known to the detective. The tiger argument, one thing I can imagine that weakens the argument is that people have domesticated tigers, however it is not common, and there is always a degree of danger and risk if you keep a tiger as a pet, even if it’s domesticated. So the argument is still strong, but not certain and 100% like the Disney one.
The Disney argument is the strongest because they provided support that makes the conclusion true.
The tiger argument is strong but can also be challenged, need to have more supporting pieces to become a stronger argument.
The trash bin argument is considered weak because there are a lot of possibilities and if I was a lawyer I would be able to poke holes in his story.
The Disney argument is the strongest because it must be true. We know that one of two things (A and B) must be true. We are told that A is not true. Therefore, B must be true.
The tiger argument gives us a statement and then provides an example of that statement. Not all mammals are suitable pets (so: at least one mammal is not a suitable pet). If tigers can cause injury, then we have at least one mammal that isn’t a suitable pet. I think this argument is weaker because, even though we can assume, we don’t know that a dangerous mammal can’t be a suitable pet. We could question what is meant by suitable.
The trash bin argument is the weakest because there are many ways in which the argument could be disproven. For example, we could argue that the cat did eat the salmon. But him being perched on the counter and licking his paw does not necessarily mean that he toppled over the bin. It could have already toppled over and then he decided to eat the salmon.
Disney Vacation Club offers only 2 ways to get Genie+ pass. So, if Walt didn't get it one way, he must have gotten it through the other way. There is no room for possibility of other methods.
Tigers is strong but it can still be challenged. It's not an ironclad argument entirely.
Trash Bin is weakest of the three. It has a lot of room for possibility. The premises of"Mr. Fat Cat is perched on the counter or he is licking his paw to clean his face" don't fully increase the strength of support for the conclusion. There are still ways to get to the conclusion, not necessarily by the premises the author provides.
The Disney argument is the strongest argument, even though each premise does not individually support the conclusion.
It sets up the claims that here are 2 specific ways that Disney Vacation Club members can receive their Genie+ passes. If Mickey did not receive his pass from meeting the requirement from 1 of the 2 ways, then he must met the requirement of the other. Without indication of those requirements, the conclusion (Walt must have offered the requisite propitiations to mickey) would not be supported, since there is no indication that by not doing "X" he must have done "Y". All claims together help strengthen the conclusion by linking one fact to another, showing that without X then the other option must be Y on the basis that there are no other ways of receiving a pass.
The Tiger argument is still a strong argument, however, its truth is solely based on one claim. The claim strongly suggest that since tigers are animals that are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people, one can deduce that there is at least 1 example of a mammal that is not suitable to keep as a pet. It is not as strong as the Disney argument because it does not directly state that mammals must be X to be suitable as a pet. Since there are no specific conditions that must be met to make the conclusion absolute, then this arguments claim is more of a suggestion than it is a matter a fact.
The Trash Bin is the least strongest argument because there are many flaws in the claims. For example, it is possible the cat had eaten something that was not from the trash, which is why they were licking their paw the same way they usually do when they eat. Furthermore, the cat COULD have eaten the fish after the bin had toppled over, but that doesn't necessarily mean the cat had knocked over the bin at all, nevertheless intentionally. Although, there is a conclusion (cat is the culprit) and claims (cats behavior + evidence of the mess) there are lots of gaps between the evidences.
The Disney argument is the strongest because the premises provide only two options for the fast pass. Another claim states that Walt has not completed one of those options, therefore, he must have completed the other option to obtain his fast pass. The passage does not provide any other option to obtain a fast pass, so the conclusion is fully supported.
The Tiger argument is the second strongest because although the premise that tigers are aggressive does support the conclusion that not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet, the argument still leaves room for questioning. (1) Are ALL tigers aggressive? (2) Does someone want an aggressive pet?
The Big argument is the weakest because although the cat's actions/appearance support the argument that he knocked over the bin and ate the fish, it too leaves room for questioning. (1) What if the cat just ate his dinner? (2) What if the cat was simply cleaning himself (beyond his regular routine of doing so after eating). There could be many other reasons why the cat is doing what he is doing that could not support the fact he ate the leftovers.
Disney is the strongest because there are only two ways to access the Genie pass. Walt did not prostrate himself which was one of the ways to get the pass so he must have offered ten goats - this was the other way to get the pass. Therefore, this is the strongest argument.
Tigers is in the middle because tigers are dangerous but this argument can be challenged because there are some tame tigers out there and these are the ones tamed by humans so they could keep them as pets.
The trash bin is the weakest argument because it does not address the fact that it could have been a toddler or a dog that spilled the trash bin so it leads to the cat being the culprit.
Disney is the strongest because its premises directly support the conclusion. Tigers is in the middle because the support is there but its not fully closed off, so it can be challenged. Trash bin is the weakest because there it assumes there is not other explanations for the situation (which is a flawed argument)
Disney: It's the strongest because the many premises show that Mr. Walt could have only done one of two things. Since we know he didn't do Thing A, we can more confidently say he did Thing B. Sure, there could be a third option that he secretly did but it would be harder to prove if more information/evidence didn't come up.
Tigers: On the surface, it's strong but holes can be poked into it. At first I thought it was the strongest because it says [Not every mammal is suitable] so all you have to do is prove that even ONE mammal is NOT and you've won your argument. However, the premise was that tigers are [aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people]. While that's true, one could say that dogs are aggressive AND can cause serious injuries to people YET, most people think they're still suitable as pets. (Don't come for me, I like dogs lol but I used it as an example because more people have dogs as pets versus something like snakes). Then if I really wanted to drive it home and make my opponent's theory fall apart, I'd start diving into the wording. Just because they CAN cause serious injuries to people doesn't mean they will. Dogs can but they don't always so maybe you can domesticate a tiger the same way you can a dog. I'd then jump into numbers and ask them what the stats are of people who get attacked by dogs and so on and so forth. So yes, it's stronger than the Trash Bin one but not strong enough to be conclusive.
Trash Bin: This is the weakest one of the bunch. If you are to have a POV of a court room while this was on trial, one would say that the evidence is circumstantial at best and the Detective is hoping the jury lean's into their bias to convict Mr. Cat lol. Just because he licked his paw the way he usually does after eating doesn't mean that he was eating. Now, if someone said "Mr. Cat ONLY licks his paw after he eats", that would make a stronger argument. If I were Mr. Cat's attorney, I'd argue that the only thing the detective was able to prove is that people[animals lol] really can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I think that the trash bin argument is the weakest because it hinges on two very weak premises for support one being the cats proximity to the trash bin and two being the licking of its paw to clean its face. they are both very weak due to the ability to undermine the claims, the cat could be licking its paw for a plethora of reasons and it could be near the trash can after it spilled. the Disney argument I believe is the strongest because in this world there are only two ways to access the fast pass, the passage doesn't talk about any other way. either the goats or goofy so if not goofy then it has to be the goats. Sure it could be other ways but in previous lessons there was mention of it being true for this world and in this world there are only two absolute ways to access the fast pass.
The Trash Bin argument assumes the cat is the only possible culprit due to its presence in the area. It ignores the possibility that somebody else could have been nearby and toppled the garbage, or that the cat could have eaten their own food. It implies the cat must be (1) hungry and (2) the only possible individual that could have knocked over the trash bin.
The tiger argument is more solid; it could be amplified with more details, but the premise ties directly into the conclusion.
I did, however, make the mistake of thinking that the Trash Bin argument was more solid than the Tiger argument. I assumed that because the Trash Bin argument had more premise behind the conclusion, that it would equate to the argument being stronger. However, I realized after reading some comments that the argument was not amplified by the additional premises, if anything that allowed more doubt to be raised against the argument of the cat being the culprit.
I put it this way for myself, I would have a harder time defending the Tiger then I would defending the cat.