If we are deriving it from knowledge in the question, wouldn't that also lead us to assume that the fact that having an aggressive pet is undesirable as absolutely true, due to this logic? I really like this explanation but would like clarification on this

I'm a little confused about the strength of an argument. Earlier, we discussed how strength is based on premise accuracy, but now he is saying that strength is dependent on the reasonableness of an argument's assumptions. Is both true? At the beginning of the course, he said to throw out any prior knowledge and take what he is saying as absoluate, but both things are said.