Here for moral support since I didn't get to that part yet but breathe! You got this and good luckkkk!!!

I did a PT and reading some of the passages made me question if I even had a brain LOL! 

It's exhausting but it makes sense. I can't remember which show I was watching but the lawyer said something about not having to prove their client was innocent, just that their client wasn't GUILTY. I thought it was interesting bc that obviously opens open the door to morality BUT it made me realize that what you SAY matters and there will be people that string a bunch of words together to throw you off your game.

It's like the person that says a whole lot of nothing but because they use a lot of big words or buzz words, everyone in the room goes whoaaaaaa that's so profound but then you sit back and break down what they said and you're like ?? that literally makes no sense or they said something super elementary lol.

THIS reminds me of that. Not that the passages AREN'T saying things that make sense BUT you need to be able to know what's important versus what's fluff.

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.

With the tiger example, the premise fully/strongly supported the conclusion. Here, not all the premises directly supported the conclusion in a strong way. One premise may have been the support for another premise which made the conclusion stronger.

Dang, I got the second one partially wrong. I was too focused on the word "Conversely".

The third one almost got me. I was writing it out and then said pause... none of these are supporting each other.

Did better than I expected and I noticed the patterns in the last few questions ( Spanish 101 question breakdown).

I get it but it’s lowkey frying me.

This is actually so wild. I basically could have saved 6+ minutes of mental gymnastics LOL!

I got it right but it took me almost 9 minutes of going between the passage/statement and answer options. I almost selected Option C but then noticed it said "higher than B minus" so I knew that was incorrect. Sheesh.