@coochicriminal I was caught up on this too, as well as the "command" = "control", because there are a lot of cases where I can command something but I don't control it.

Again with the wizards are spellcasters, that's somewhat acceptable and probably in the accepted definition of wizard, but it's weird to change it up because that's not an exact subset/superset. If they were switched that definitely wouldn't make sense, because spellcasters could be witches, or warlocks, etc. depending on what culture you're familiar with.

I haven't gotten to the logic section but formal logic tells me C makes the most sense (even though I chose B):

Premises:

If price paid for beans increases --> Shop inc. prices

If Shop inc. prices --> begin selling noncoff V coffee sales dec.

If begin selling noncoff --> prof dec

If coffee sales ~dec --> prof ~dec

Follow the logic: makes sense up to the 3rd if, then just have to reverse the 4th from:

~P --> ~Q

~~Q --> ~~P Modus Tollens

Q --> P

If there is no decrease in profit then coffee sales did not decrease. so,

prof ~~dec --> coffee sales ~~dec

prof dec --> coffee sales dec

Put it all together, If price paid for beans continues to increase then overall profitiability will decrease, guaranteed.

My hypothesis is that stronger arguments require less, if any, assumptions.

There are missing pieces in the Tigers and Mr. Fat Cat arguments. For the tiger one, assumed premises could be 'If a mammal is aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people then it is not suitable to keep a a pet', 'Tigers are mammals' and then you have the 'Tigers are aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people'. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. This follows a strong line of reasoning, similar to the Disney scenario = it is a stronger argument.