@Laulno I think this goes back to the assumptions piece.

From this perspective, we say that the stronger an argument is, the fewer and more reasonable its assumptions are. The corollary is that the weaker an argument is, the more and less reasonable its assumptions are.

With that in mind, let's revisit the Tigers argument.

Not every mammal is suitable to keep as a pet. After all, tigers are very aggressive and can cause serious injuries to people.

I want to ask you whether this argument has made any assumptions, but I first should tell you what an assumption is.

It's the missing link between the premise and the conclusion. It's a claim whose truth we take for granted so that the argument "runs through." It's something unstated but if it were stated, would help the premise better support the conclusion. So assumptions have the potential to help arguments become stronger. But for the same reasons, they also are the weak point of every argument, the point where it is most vulnerable to criticism.

I feel like the Disney one has so many concrete facts that ultimately corner the conclusion.

In the tiger one, the conclusion just seems so vast in comparison to what the premise is. There's also interesting word usage that can be debatable or conditional. They "can" cause serious injuries but they also "can not." What is "not every" what is "suitable"?

The trash bin one has facts embedded in maybes. There's also like micro-conclusions within that are based on other assumptions with everything working together to give 'reason to believe.'

Not sure if i'm making sense.

*btw it's my second day on this journey. I've been thinking about law school for 6 years! & this is my first comment! I'm having a blast.