In multiple answers above there is a distinction made between major premises and sub-conslusions. For example, in 2.4:

(Minor) Premise: Emily acknowledges her movement from the cupcake section to the bread section, and no path from cupcakes to bread exists that bypasses the freshly baked cookies.

Major Premise/Sub-Conclusion: Hence, she must have been in close proximity to the cookies when their enticing smell wafted through the bakery.

Major Premise: It's inconceivable for anyone to be near that irresistible smell and not inhale it.

Main Conclusion: Emily must have smelled the fresh batch of cookies at the bakery.

The Major Premise is not a conclusion of the minor premise. I don't see a concrete relationship between "Emily passed the cookies" and "no one could be near that smell and not notice it". However, they together support the ultimate conclusion. Could you help me understand what I'm missing?

I'm struggling to understand how the sentence "No one could have been anywhere in the vicinity of such an exciting moment and fail to notice it." in 2.1 in a Sub-conclusion. That is not supported by Alex having passed the bug screen on the way from his seat. I read that as a secondary premise that supports the SC.

I'm not sure that it's defined that, just because a mammal may be capable of causing harm, they are categorically not suitable to be kept as pets, A German Shepard could kill a person, but most would consider them suitable as pets.

My hypothesis: The Disney argument identifies two channels for the outcome to be true, then rules out one, leaving no doubt that the second channel was utilized. This is very strong because it does not require the reader to make assumptions

The tiger argument provides one premise which does support the conclusion, but does not establish that having a pet capable of harm are not good pets.

The trash bin argument does not prove that the fat cat did it, only provides evidence that it may have occurred.

I got this one wrong as well. My guess is that population growth increasing the demand for housing isn't actually supported by there being on a few construction companies on the market. In a vacuum, what does there being only, say, three construction companies in my city have to do with demand? Demand would remain constant regardless of supply.