The Disney argument is the strongest because it must be true. We know that one of two things (A and B) must be true. We are told that A is not true. Therefore, B must be true.

The tiger argument gives us a statement and then provides an example of that statement. Not all mammals are suitable pets (so: at least one mammal is not a suitable pet). If tigers can cause injury, then we have at least one mammal that isn’t a suitable pet. I think this argument is weaker because, even though we can assume, we don’t know that a dangerous mammal can’t be a suitable pet. We could question what is meant by suitable.

The trash bin argument is the weakest because there are many ways in which the argument could be disproven. For example, we could argue that the cat did eat the salmon. But him being perched on the counter and licking his paw does not necessarily mean that he toppled over the bin. It could have already toppled over and then he decided to eat the salmon.