This sounds so helpful!! If you’re able to share, I would love to utilize it!

I struggled w/ the tigers v trash bin on what was the weakest.

Initially, I assumed it was tigers as there wasn't much support to the claim and was very broad statement, while trash bin showed a sequential thought pattern to lead you to the conclusion.

However, I think the key distinction is that the trash bin example specifically relies on an assumption that was presumed only on suspicion alone; meaning we could poke holes in the hypothesis as there is no substantial evidence. If instead it was mentioned that he was cleaning salmon off his paw, that would show proof, but also you need to consider the dog could've knocked the bin and that was why he ate the salmon that was cleaned off his paw. The word "intentionally" needs to be proven, but based on the premise, we cannot conclude that, there is still much doubt.

The tigers example however, is stronger that trash bin because it is more generalized. The "not every" part to me showed it's not an air-locked accusation or argument like the trash bin; there is wiggle room for not all mammals to be a good pet, as not all mammals are tigers.

@themoodyactivist Hey! I am based in San Diego and would love to connect! I am also aiming for this fall for a 2027 start :)