I believe that the fat cat/toppled bin argument is the weakest because it is making an assumption/inference/hypothesis based off of evidence that was present at the "scene of the crime". In reality though the premises supports the conclusion, the truth value of the conclusion cannot be determined any further and will remain a hypothesis, meaning there is a chance that the conclusion can be false.

so does this mean that in an argument the premise can be untrue but the conclusion still be true, but the argument itself is less solid/true due to the lack of a premise that supports it?

hello my name is Manny and I am taking the LSAT in June. I go to UF! Go Gators!