I believe that the stronger and argument, the fewer assumptions it makes / the more factual it's claims are. The trash bin's conclusion snuck in an extra claim that isn't supported by evidence "having intnentionally knocked over the bin" this claim has no supporting claim but it is attached to the hypothesis that Mr. Fat Cat is guilty. In general, this whole argument is based more on what seems most likely not off of what we know to be certainly true. Disney is strongest because it has multiple supporting claims and the conclusion doesn't sneak any assumptions or extra claims in without support. Tiger is in the middle because it is fairly clear cut with a basic conclusion to draw from the premise, but it still makes some assumptions, or leaves out reasoning. We don't know for sure from the argument made that aggressive and injury-causing mammals are not suitable to keep as pets, it is implied from the rest of the argument, but it technically is an assumption.

Tiger: Not all prehistoric animals were dinosaurs. After all, some were mammals, fish, or reptiles from different lineages.

Disney: To be a blacksmith one must pass a test from an accredited institution or apprentice under a master. John is a blacksmith but never took a test, so he must have been apprenticed.

Trash bin: The car had chocolate all over the dashboard and was trashed. I saw Alexei with chocolate covered hands hiding a wrapper as he exited the car an hour ago. Therefore I believe he trashed the car.