1. In a recent editorial, The Guardian has accused us at The Koala of being offensive. Ironically, on the page oppoosite this editorial was a cartoon featuring racial stereotypes. The Guardian is hypocritical.

No fallacy. It looks superficially like an ad himinem tu quoque, but isn't. The arguer's conclusion is not that the Guardian's accusastions are wrong, or that what the Koala does is OK. If this were the conclusion, then it would be a tu quoque. But the conclusion is that the Guardian is being hypocritical, and whether or not you are guity of things yo0u accuse others of is relevant to whether or not you are hypocritical.

2. Perhaps you guys should give Betty a Pass for the course, even though she didn't earn enough points. After all, her fiancee dumped her, and if she doesn't pass, she might quit school.

Appeal to pity. The considerations adduced are not relevant to whether or not Betty should be passed. Presumably there are standard grading criteria in effect, and only these are relevant. The considerations might be relevant to other issues, such as the possibility of giving Betty additional help or support in some way, but not for what grade she should get.

3. Ruffles: America's favorite chip. (advertisement)

Appeal to people (ad populam: bandwaggoning). Though there is no explicit argument here, and so one might be tempted to think that there is no fallacy because there is no argument, the fact is that because this is an advertisement there is a clear implied argument to the effect that you should buy Ruffles, or that Ruffles is the best chip. Given this, it is clear that there is an ad populam bandwaggoning fallacy at work. From the fact that it is popular it dooes not at all follow that it is best.

4. I realize that the administration wants to expand law-enforcement powers, including revising wire-tapping laws, in order to combat terrorism. But these are the same ideas that were used by the Nazis in the 30s. So clearly we should not adopt them.

Genetic fallacy. There might be reasons for not expanding law enforcement powers, but none are given here. Merely pointing out that the policy is one that came from, or was adopted by, the Nazis does not, by itself, show that it is always a bad idea. [For example, the Nazi government spent money on education, and we would clearly not want to argue that we should cut all federal education spending because spending money on education was something the Nazis did. If expanding law enforcement powers is a bad idea, it should be possible to point out specific reasons why it is bad, and such an argument might include as one part showing how in the case of the Nazis such powers led to unacceptable abuses and/or was ineffective in stopping crime. But no such considerations are supplied here.]

5. I realize that the ACLU has argued that expanding law-enforcement powers is not a good idea. But just because the ACLU thinks that we should let anyone who wants to kill people and blow up buildings doesn't mean it is a good idea. How can the ACLU defend that kind of behavior?

Straw man. The ACLU is not arguing that killing people is acceptable behavior. The arguer here is mischaracterizing the ACLU's position and then pointing out that this position is unacceptable.

6. My manager told me that you are going to publish a list of the best albums of 2001. I hope you reach the conclusion that my album deserves to be on your list. By the way, did I mention that your editor is a golfing buddy of mine? If she were to learn that you give people unauthorized access to the newspaper's computer system, she might to a little investigating, which could lead to you getting fired.

Appeal to force. There is a clearly implied threat, and the stated conclusion has to do with whether or not the album 'deserves' to be on the list. [There is a chain of events mentioned that might look superficially like slippery slope, but there is no reasons to assue that this chain of events is unlikely. The plausibility of that chain of events occuring is not where the problem is with this argument.]