The Disney argument provides two options and we are made aware one of them is no longer possible. We are also told that the only conclusion possible by these two arguments has been accomplished, meaning that it could have only been achieved using the argument that has not been touched yet. With the Tiger we are given a reason for why the argument is agued correct, but what makes this a weaker argument is that it is something that can be unlikely. Finally, for the detective we aren't given information that allows us to eliminate any other variables, instead we are simply given some amount of context on why it is believed our arguement is correct. A guess.

Doing this for my own personal sake. Support is what the LSAT is based mostly on, the claim that is supporting another claim is the premise, and the claim that is being supported is the argument.