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

The argument is strong because it correctly identifies penguins as birds based on the given statement.

The argument is weak because having wheels does not necessarily mean it is a car; other vehicles also have wheels.

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 invalid because stating that all dogs are animals does not imply that no animals are dogs.

The argument is weak because it incorrectly defines fruits based solely on the presence of seeds.

The argument is invalid because not all things with seeds are fruits.

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 valid because if all mammals have lungs, it follows that some animals with lungs must be mammals.

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 valid because if no fish can fly, it implies that some flying creatures are not 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 invalid because just because no reptiles are warm-blooded does not mean all warm-blooded animals are not reptiles.

The argument is invalid because the statement only claims that some birds can fly, not all.

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 invalid because just because some cars are electric does not mean all electric vehicles are cars.