difference between Appeal to Authority and topos of Authority

Hi, I have two questions:

Please let me know what is the difference between topos and fallacy. I have seen these two terms in Wodak's book as two different terms. But I was confused about them.

I also want to know what is the difference between Appeal to Authority and topos of Authority? Are these the same or different?

Many thanks for your help

I have never heard of the word "topos" used in this context. Perhaps someone else here has.

I found these interesting items that might help in distinguishing the difference between topos and fallacies.

Webster defines topos as a traditional or conventional literary or rhetorical theme or topic
Webster defines a fallacy as a false or mistaken idea

Dr. Bo describes the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority thusly: Appeal to Authority
argumentum ad verecundiam (also known as argument from authority, ipse dixit)

Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Also, see the appeal to false authority.

According to Igor Ž. Žagar - Educational Research Institute Ljubljana & the University of Maribor Slovenia writing in the Rosenberg Quarterly on The Use and Misuse of topos in Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) And Discourse-Historical Approach (DHA):

"CDA, in Wodak’s view (ibid.), is not concerned with evaluating what is ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. CDA … should try to make choices at each point in the research itself, and should make these choices transparent[ii]. It should also justify theoretically why certain interpretations of discursive events seem more valid than others."

Within argumentation theory, Wodak continues (2006, p. 74),

‘topoi’ or ‘loci‘ can be described as parts of argumentation which belong to the obligatory, either explicit or inferable premises. They are the content-related warrants or ‘conclusion rules’, which connect the argument or arguments with the conclusion, the claim. As such, they justify the transition from the argument or arguments to the conclusion (Kienpointner, 1992: 194).

Igor Ž. Žagar goes on to compare lists of possible topoi and how to find them:

In the above-mentioned publications, we get to see the lists of the(see) topoi. In the chapter “The Discourse-Historical Approach” (Wodak 2006, p. 74), we read that “the analyses of typical content-related argument schemes can be carried out against the background of the list of topoi though incomplete and not always disjunctive”, as given in the following table:

1. Usefulness, advantage
2. Uselessness, disadvantage
3. Definition, name-interpretation
4. Danger and threat
5. Humanitarianism
6. Justice
7. Responsibility
8. Burdening, weighting
9. Finances
10. Reality
11. Numbers
12. Law and right
13. History
14. Culture
15. Abuse.

In summary, I think we're focusing on two specific differences in argumentation theory. Topoi are potential areas of personal and professional bias in
CDA and DHA, whereas logical fallacies are clearly false and deceptive flaws in ratiocination with a specific eye on determining what is logically, probabilistically, and reasonably sound, and what is not.