You might be expecting your answers updated in the blind review to be counted—they are not.

LOL! Leave it to me. Thank you :)

How can you definitively set the Disney argument as stronger than the tiger example on the gradient because of this?

While I understand the purpose that the Disney argument is supposed to serve in this example, I am struggling to accept the notion that it is a stronger argument than the tiger example.

Walt Disney could certainly bypass the Genie Pass standards/steps being that he is... Walt Disney. Because of this Walt loophole, the tiger example is more likely to be truth over the Disney example since I can't find a weak point in the support—Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people. Therefore, not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. There is no counter to the logic of the tiger argument making it a "valid inference" as stated at the strongest point of the gradient.