Why is 6.1's conclusion "Yet, scientists have recently discovered a new way by which the plant can absorb phosphorus, a much-needed nutrient"? I understand how the word "yet" indicates the turn/shift from context to argument, but my confusion stems from the fact that scientists discovering something seems more like an observation or piece of evidence rather than a conclusion that one is arguing for. For a moment, I thought the problem didn't even contain a conclusion. Could I have some clarification as to why that is the conclusion?

While the argument is strong, I feel like the conclusion is NECESSARYILY true even if the premises are true. For instance, what if the tiger is domesticated? People keep tigers as exotic pets. Sure it's more likely that it's dangerous and shouldn't be a pet, but there is a possibility it isn't, and I think that's why the tiger argument is in the middle.

The Disney argument is the strongest because, given that the premises are true, it MUST be the case that Walt has offered the requisite propitiations to Disney.

The Tiger argument is the next strongest argument because the premises are generally true. If a premise is true, its conclusion must be true for the argument to be valid. Tigers are generally aggressive animals. Tigers are mammals. Therefore, it's true that not all mammals are suitable as pets. However, I would argue that it's possible that maybe not all tigers are aggressive. Maybe one tiger has been domesticated, so it won't hurt anyone. Because I can point to a counterexample, the argument might not be the strongest.

The Trash Bin argument is the weakest because the premises don't necessarily point to the conclusion. Mr Fat Cat could have eaten something else. Someone or something else could have knocked down the trash bin. Therefore the conclusion doesn't follow.