I think the strength of the argument comes from how well the premises provide a reason to believe the conclusion. In other words, the Disney argument is a set of rules. Following the logic of the rules there is no other outcome possible except for the one we got. Essentially, following each part of the premise leaves you with only one possible conclusion.

The tiger argument is next, middle of the road in this group. I think that's because the premise isn't definitive. there's wiggle room there because of the wording, specifically, "Tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people." The premise is compelling, and we know it to be true, but in the context of the argument, it isn't completely locked down in the way the Disney argument was, providing some room for a person to doubt or argue against the conclusion.

Finally, the toppled trash argument is the weakest because while connections might be there, the evidence does not make the claim of the conclusion air tight. For example, the claim that Mr. Fat Cat being perched on the counter is evidence of his wrongdoing does nothing, how do we know Mr. Fat Cat isn't always sitting on the counter? Perhaps that's his favorite spot? Or the claim that Mr. Fat Cat was licking his paw, "the way he does after having eaten," perhaps Mr. Fat Cat licks his paw after eating, but we don't know if there's perhaps a different scenario in which Mr. Fat Cat would be licking his paw. Maybe Mr. Fat Cat licks his paw when it's dirty? Maybe he licks his paw to clean it, regardless of how it got that way? While the other parts of the premise also have alternative interpretations, I believe the biggest flaw in the argument is the language used, that is the detective points out that the expression on Mr. Fat Cat's face is, "self satisfied," Unless Mr. Fat Cat explicitly states that he is feeling self satisfied, then this an extrapolation on the part of the detective and one that's supported by nothing more than his feelings. I believe this would indicate bias on the detectives part. All of these together weaken the argument.

#feedback I enjoyed this lesson but I think it would be helpful to explain in more detail why the ones that aren't arguments, aren't arguments.

I understand at a basic level that if they're not an argument it's because they don't support each other. But, on the questions I got wrong I thought they did support each other, so an explanation of, "well these don't support each other because of xyz" would, I think, be very helpful, especially in cases where the language is vague.

Hi all! I'm also just starting and would love to join a study group!