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.

Please correct me if this looks incorrect.

Example:

The dogs never go outside. The doctor said that outdoor walks with the dogs are a good form of exercise. Exercise is important for dogs to be healthy. My hypothesis is that the dogs are not healthy.

I understand the idea that the claims must support one another to increase the likelihood of it being true, however, in the next lesson it states that order doesn't matter. I guess where I am confused is if order doesn't matter, then how do we determine that the conclusion + premise relationship is:

Conclusion: Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. Premise: Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.

and not the other way around?

Am I thinking too deeply into this part and in the real test I should just assume what the conclusion is and what the premise is regardless of order?