The Disney argument is the strongest because it is a deductive argument. The truth of the premises guarantees the conclusion. With 100% certainty.

While the tiger and cat arguments are both inductive. The truth of the premises provide a degree of probability that the conclusion is true.

The tiger argument is stronger than the cat argument because the premise offers a higher probability that the conclusion is true. This is because for the cat argument, there are so many other explanations as to who knocked over the trash that are very possible and likely, which is not known to the detective. The tiger argument, one thing I can imagine that weakens the argument is that people have domesticated tigers, however it is not common, and there is always a degree of danger and risk if you keep a tiger as a pet, even if it’s domesticated. So the argument is still strong, but not certain and 100% like the Disney one.

lmao, thinking like a cat.. just say what u wanna say

A--->B

B<s>C

A<s>c

this is invalid. but if there is at least 1 B in the set of C

then shouldnt there be at least 1 A in the set of C. Since all A's are B's?

i got 0/3

3 separate times lmaooooooo nice

im really trying to understand #5

modus tollens

p-->q

~q

therefore ~p