My hypothesis is that it depends on the certainty of all the premises. Also how detail oriented it is.

For the Disney argument we are certain that the members must either offer Mickey propitiations or prostate themselves in front of Goofy. We are also certain that Walt did not prostate himself in front of Goofy.

For the Tiger argument we are certain that all tigers are aggressive, but we are not certain of likelihood of attack.

For the trash bin argument all we are certain of is that the salmon is that the whole trash bin is spilled an that there was some salmon inside, and that the cat is also looking like he ate something. We are ignoring many details to focus on the salmon and assuming that the cat couldn't have eaten anything else.

If an argument should recognized by whether if there is a claim, which if true, would make another claim more likely to be true. Would it still be considered an argument even if I know the claim is untrue. I'm a bit confused since support doesn't have to be true to be considered support so I was wondering if it can still be an argument even if the support is untrue. I think I might be diving too deep into it.