The Trash bin argument leaves too many holes, and assumes that Mr. Fat Cat knocked over the bin without considering other possible culprits.

The tigers argument makes a conclusion that is directly tied to the premises, though more evidence might strengthen the argument even more.

Tiger: Not all plants need to be watered everyday. Succulents are plants that store water for long periods of time.

Disney: Any female student attending University A has the chance to join the Alpha Beta Pi Sorority. Students who's mothers are past members of the sorority are automatically admitted. All other students must walk across a bed of burning coal to become soroity member. Kelly is a member of the Alpha Beta Pi Sorority. Kelly has no relatives that have ever been in a sorority. This means that Kelly must have walked across the burning coal.

Fat Cat: My bank account is empty. My bank statement indicates a purchase of a brand new Television. My neighbour recently had a new Television delivered to his home. Therefore, my neighbour must have emptied my bank account to buy his new television.

The Disney argument is different because there are many more parts to the it than in the Tiger Argument – because there are several premises set up to support the conclusion, there is more evidence to strengthen the argument in the first place.

Good luck!

So apparently the english spoke to me better than the logic...

For these questions, is it safe to say there's more than one answer? I would argue i got everything right, but I just chose different elements when i negated sufficient, or kicked up into the domain.