@Abigail Ahia It was a trick to try and get you to read into what followed the word "since" instead of paying attention to the use of the word, "consequently."

"There has been a surge in obesity rates," is a sub conclusion.

"There has been a surge in obesity rates," weakly supports the conclusion stated after the use of, consequently.

The Disney argument works well because it outlines a framework for the argument that the other two do not have. There are clear facts and a process at work. If one thing is true the other is not. Therefore if one set of circumstances is met it is because the other is not.

The tiger argument is weaker because it is basing the argument on one species of animal and providing two supporting premises that one can find flaws with. Not all tigers behave the same way and not all tigers are inherently aggressive. For example tigers in zoos do not all maul their handlers on sight and just because a tiger can cause serious injuries doesn't mean it will. The same argument could be made for a human being. One could make the argument that the institution that keeps the tigers has in a way made them pets for educational purposes.

The trash bin argument is the weakest because the evidence is circumstantial. Because there is nobody else to point a finger at, the cat is accused of the behavior, but the cat could have come in after the trash bin was knocked over. Or the cat could have eaten something else ignoring the trash altogether.