The actual argument is that the cat tipped the trash over (and then ate from it) and that it was intentional. The evidence put forth does not actually indicate that, it indicates that the cat likely ate from the trash, but we have no reason to actually believe the cat A) did it intentionally vs accidentally and that B) the cat did it vs the wind or a clumsy person knocking it over. Based on what we have the cat is as likely to be a lucky scavenger as it is a mischievous trash-can-tipper.
Meanwhile the tiger example is a clear and blatant example of at least one mammal that is indeed a bad pet. The argument is that not all mammals are good pets, therefore even one mammal not being a good pet means the argument is valid.
The actual argument is that the cat tipped the trash over (and then ate from it) and that it was intentional. The evidence put forth does not actually indicate that, it indicates that the cat likely ate from the trash, but we have no reason to actually believe the cat A) did it intentionally vs accidentally and that B) the cat did it vs the wind or a clumsy person knocking it over. Based on what we have the cat is as likely to be a lucky scavenger as it is a mischievous trash-can-tipper.
Meanwhile the tiger example is a clear and blatant example of at least one mammal that is indeed a bad pet. The argument is that not all mammals are good pets, therefore even one mammal not being a good pet means the argument is valid.