in the premises for the Disney argument, it states that to get a pass, you must do 1 of 2 things: give Mickey a provision or prostrate yourself to Goofy. Those are the only ways you're able to get a pass. Walt has a pass, but has never prostrated himself to anyone. If we follow the premises and assume them to be true, then the only way for Walt to get a pass is to give to Mickey. If the provisions are true, then the conclusion must also be true, full stop.

The tiger example is very strongly supported, but not to the extent of the Disney one. "Not all mammals are suitable to be kept as pets. After all, tigers can injure people" (or something of the like, i'm too lazy to go back and find the direct quote, lol). Maybe someone thinks that's a suitable trait for a pet, who knows? The premises don't require the conclusion to be true, unlike the Disney example.