I think the Disney argument forces me down one of two streets—if X only happens because either Y or Z.. then if not Y then Z. Or inversely if not Z then Y. No room for B, C, or D etc. that’s why its the strongest argument in my opinion.

The Tiger argument being second strongest (although confused me at first) does make sense to me being it gives me a clear description of what I’m supposed to view tigers as— aggressive. So I’m told to assume the conclusion based off that premise.

The trash bin argument being the weakest makes sense to me now. Nowhere in the argument does it state that the bin being knocked over and the cat being present is connected. I understand in reading that’s what I’m being told to theorize, but there’s not necessarily a strong support between the premise and the conclusion. It requires too much assumption. More assumption than the other two arguments. ,