Logical Fallacies

1) In the first passage, the writer claims that sex-education should remain a family matters, that if kids are expose to sex-education at young age could prove detrimental rather than helpful for the children. They reasons that the issues[sex-ed.] at hand “removes family involvement with the children, put kids in an uncomfortable position, stripped any sense of morality, promote promiscuity, and encourages experimentation.” In the passage, I have identified the logical fallacies that the author utilized in their argument: personal attack(ad hominem), slippery slope, perfect argument, false dilemma, and wishful thinking. This argument seems to direct its argument toward a general surgeon about his recommendation about educating kids at young as third grader about sex, a personal attack. Secondly, the writer believes that by teaching kids sex-ed in school, they assumes that there is only consequences from the action[sex-ed.
They wrote the argument with definite support for the dog breed that included personal experiment, and a credible source from a Dr., who is the direct of a dog clinic to back their thesis. This passage is a bit tough to identify the logical fallacy being used, but I came across two fallacies based on my understanding of the terms: straw-man and slippery slope. The writer is misrepresenting the opponent’s thesis because they implicit state the banishment of pit bull, but fail to clarify the extension of the ban—where, when, what kind of ban. Furthermore, the author claims that the petition to ban pit bull is the caused of idiot who tend to hate dogs, further discrediting their opponent claims. The second one is the fallacy slippery slope, the writer thinks that the ban should be avoided because “it would not totally prevent dogs” from attacking people, and the dog he has could never attack a human being—all of which he fails to prove with supported