The argument is weak because it incorrectly includes penguins, which cannot fly.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly assumes that all mammals are cats, which is not true.

The argument is valid because if all cats are mammals, it logically follows that some mammals are indeed cats.

The argument is invalid because the statement does not imply that all animals are dogs, only that all dogs are included in the category of animals.

The argument is strong because it correctly identifies strawberries as fruits based on the given statement.

The argument is strong because it correctly applies the general statement about humans to a specific case (Socrates).

The argument is valid because Socrates, being a human, must be mortal as per the statement.

The argument is weak because having lungs does not exclusively mean that an animal is a mammal.

The argument is strong because it correctly states that whales, being mammals, must have lungs.

The argument is invalid because while all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.

The argument is strong because it correctly states that squares are a specific type of rectangle.

The argument is weak because the statement does not support the conclusion that all mammals are birds.

The argument is invalid because the statement only indicates that no birds are mammals, not that all mammals cannot be birds.

The argument is strong because it correctly reflects the statement that no dogs are cats.

The argument is strong because it logically follows that if no fish are mammals, some mammals cannot be fish.

The argument is strong because it logically follows from the statement that no mammals lay eggs.

The argument is valid because if no reptiles are mammals, it follows that some mammals cannot be reptiles.

The argument is weak because the statement clearly states that no reptiles are mammals, making the conclusion false.

The argument is weak because it generalizes that all birds can swim based on the fact that some can.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly generalizes that all cars are electric based on the fact that some are.

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 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 incorrectly assumes that all trees must be plants without exception.

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.