The argument is valid because if some cars are electric, it logically follows that some electric vehicles must be cars.

The argument is weak because it generalizes that all dogs are unfriendly based on the fact that some are not.

The argument is strong because it correctly identifies roses as a type of flower that can be red.

The argument is strong because it correctly states that apples are a subset of fruits.

The argument is valid because if some fruits are apples, it follows that some apples must be fruits.

The argument is strong because it logically follows that if some fruits are tropical, then some tropical items must be fruits.

The argument is weak because it generalizes that all conductive materials are metals.

The argument is valid because if some metals are conductive, it follows that some conductive materials can be metals.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly generalizes that all metals are magnetic based on some.

The argument is weak because while some pets are dogs, it does not mean that all dogs are pets.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly assumes that all trees must be plants without exception.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly generalizes that all students are athletes based on a subset.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly assumes that all professors must be teachers.

The argument is invalid because just because some teachers are not professors does not imply that some professors are not teachers.

The argument is invalid because the statement does not provide information about strict individuals outside of teachers.

The argument is strong because it logically follows that if some teachers are women, then some women must be teachers.

The argument is strong because it correctly states that cars are a subset of vehicles.