This is Disjunctive Syllogism in sentential Logic... obviously you need the negation of a clause in the stimulus to negate one of the clauses

@ElizabethLeBarron I was taught that validity is more about the structure of the argument and most importantly, if the premises are true then the conclusion must be true. Now, most of these arguments aren't sound (a sound argument being that the claims are true and an unsound argument being the claims to be untrue), moreover, not all valid arguments need to be sound to be valid. As long as the shape of the argument (AKA logic structure) is a valid structure then the argument is valid. Furthermore, with relation to your question, it's beneficial to state claims in support of your premises to eliminate assumptions but not all arguments are that way. Proposed solution: strip the argument down into it's kernel then use sentential logic (i.e. Modus Ponens, Modus Tollens simply is If then logic) to understand the gaps or truth or falsity in the argument.

@KhyberBabak I agree with you but if ground things on relationships then it implies outside knowledge of the given subject. I actually felt the opposite of you for the disney argument because when the stimuli is light then I can add unnecessary assumptions instead of sentential or predicate logic.

@MagicMushroom I'd say because both claims are directly supporting one another. Example; claim 3 and 5 don't directly support one another because Walt has a pass and in claim 6 they avoid the second option.

Ok, I understand how they're arguments and the structure for which to look for. I'm having trouble understanding how to not think relationally about arguments and introduce knowledge outside of the subject/claim in question. To me the Disney argument is clearly supported by explicit line by line claims that show direction. My point, the tiger argument rests on the fact of external knowledge.