Dang, I keep doing this thing where I get caught up in the arguments that make logical sense and not enough on the arguments that are exploiting some sort of flaw.

As I understand it, the reason C matches is because we are making an assumption that each person is X, therefore they sufficiently qualify to be Y.

So because Chris is a table tennis champion, he MUST have quick reflexes which means he would make a good race car driver. Likewise, with Mary-we are assuming she is skilled with her hands because she is a watchmaker, therefore, she would be a good Drackedary player.

Am I thinking about this right?

@GabrielleFreeman I think you hit the nail on the head! The Tiger example does utilize only one premise while the Disney example utilizes several. The Disney example is more succinct due to the fact that it's completely logically sound. The Tiger example, while it logically makes sense, doesn't make as much sense because it is a less complete argument than what we are used to seeking out.