I asked myself, how likely is it that an alternative explanation would explain the conclusion. In other words, how essential are the premises to guarantee the truth of the conclusion? The cat argument fell flat because, while there is reason to speculate that the cat tipped the trash can, the evidence does not rule out other possibilities. The Disney argument feels completely different. We can reasonably conclude that there is only one way for Walt to have obtained the Genie+ pass. It would be extremely difficult to argue against the conclusion if we assume that the premises are true. The Tigers Argument is well reasoned, but the bridge from premise to conclusion is more implicit. For example, we have to assume that to qualify as a non-suitable pet, the animal must not be able to cause serious injury to people.