Decide which, if any, fallacy might be used to describe the following political slogans or phrases:

the fallacies are:
-scare tactic
-slippery slope
-sentimental appeals
-bandwagon appeals
-appeals to false authority
-moral equivalence
-ad hominem arguements
-hasty generalization
-faulty causualty
-begging the question
-non sequitur
-the straw man
-faulty analogy

1. "Leave no child behind." (George Bush policy and slogan)
I would say that this one is a sentimental appeal.. ??

2. "It's the economy, stupid." (sign on the wall at Bill Clinton's campaign headquarters)

3. "Nixon's the one." (campaign slogan)
would it be dogmatism??

4. "Remember the Alamo."

5. "Make love, not war." (antiwar slogan during the Vietnam War)

6. "A chicken in every pot."

7. "No taxation without representation."

8. "There's no free lunch."

9. "Loose lips sink ships."
scare tactic??

10. "Guns don't kill people, people do." (NRA slogan)
umm hasty generalization??

11. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen."

I have looked all of these fallacies up, but I am just having a hard time deciding which one goes with each political slogan.

This is what I think, I'm not sure. I know this discussion is probably well over, but I'm kind of voicing my own thoughts to whoever may need this later.

-"Leave no child behind" is Sentimental Appeals (I typically connect children or cute animals to sentimental arguments)

-"It's the economy, stupid" is Adhominem (the basic idea behind adhominem is "name calling")

-"Nixon's the one" is Dogmatism (because it's like saying he's the only option?)

-"Remember the Alamo" I'm between a few for this. Sentimental appeals, maybe, or scare tactics. It's seems like it would fall into the Pathos category.

-"Make love, not war" I don't understand why everyone I've seen so far has called this non sequitor. Wikipedia calls it Sentimental appeal, but I don't really agree with that, either. However, I think sentimental is the better of the two answers

-"A chicken in every pot" Possibly bandwagon? I don't know the reference, so it might require looking into the saying's background.

-"No taxation without representation" I agree that knowing the background of this quote might lead one to faulty causality. That seems to be the best option.

-"There's no free lunch" I don't know that background of this quote either, so I can't really be sure of this one. As Sarah put, possibly hasty generalization?

-"Loose lips sink ships" could be a few. Faulty causality is a good one, so is scare tactics.

-"Guns don't kill, people do" I'm pretty sure equivocation for this one. It's a play on the definition of "kill", whether killing is a thought out, intentional thing, or the actual act of taking a life.

-"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" I really think this is an either-or fallacy. You can either take the heat or leave.

A chicken in every pot is a political slogan made by president Herbert Hoover which meant poverty will be banished from this nation.

Use the list of fallacies on the right to get the each one's explanation. Then you should have a better time deciding correctly.

Let us know what you come up with.

nugfj acom xadybcei odkcfywa juliav qmcyirp hzseba

Well, which are the correct answers?? I also need help badly... please anybody??

1. "It's the economy, stupid", "Nixon's the one", and "There's no free lunch" are hasty generalization.

2. "Remember the Alamo" is non sequitor.

3. "No taxation without representation", "loose lips sink ships" are a Faulty causality.

4. "guns don't kill, people do" is an equivication.

5. "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen" is an Ad Hominem.

That's all I got!!

Trump is a fallacy