What do you make of these 'fallacies'?

I came across this article in Psychology Today, detailing what the author believed to be 26 logical fallacies politicians need to avoid. Most of them are fairly uncontroversial, and are included in Dr Bennett's guide.

There are some contestable entries though. I'm going to modify the examples with some of my imaginary friends.

10. Runaway Train Fallacy: refers to an argument that supports a particular course of action, while also supporting much more of it.

Collin: We should increase the marginal rate of income tax from 45% to 50% because this will lead to greater income redistribution.

Rosemary: So why stop there? Why not 50%, or 60%, or even 75%?

What I'm getting from this is a converse Slippery Slope, where instead of having no reason to go from event A to B to C, there's no reason to not advance from A to B to C. In the above example, Collin commits the 'fallacy' by not explaining why we should stop at 50%. Effectively, we have an incomplete argument.

I can see how this argument might fall short - "greater income distribution" is a good reason to raise the tax rate, but not sufficient for stopping where Collin wants it to stop. He'd need to further explain why 50% is desirable as opposed to the other intervals I mentioned.

17. Half-concealed qualification is to hide or gloss over the qualifications that limit the strength of a claim.

The B31 iceberg is six times larger than Manhattan, and large enough to warrant special attention from NASA. In November 2013, the giant iceberg broke free from the Pine Island Glacier in Antarctica. This is a fairly unusual place to observe such pieces breaking free from the frozen continent. The area has been closely monitored by researchers who *believe* that global warming *may* be leading to retreat of ice at the landmark."

Basically, using inflammatory language to bolster the strength of a very limited claim. Note the use of 'believe' and 'may'. These act as checkpoints. If called out by the opponent later on in the debate, the proponent can retreat back to those checkpoints and say, "ah, but I never said it was definite! I said 'believe'!" This appears to be related to Having Your Cake and Hedging. Then again, how fallacious is this? Qualifying statements when you're unsure is a mark of intellectual honesty. Sometimes consensus isn't out yet.

20. Damning the alternatives is to argue in favor of something by damning its alternatives.

Portia: OK team, so we can choose between A, B, or C. We can't do C, and no way in hell are we doing B. So it's gonna have to be A folks, *sigh*.

This isn't fallacious. As long as there's no false array (a set of intentionally limited options excluding at least 1 other logically valid one), this can be a valid form of reasoning when dealing with the 'lesser of evils', as it were. If C is worse than A and B, and B is worse than A, it follows logically that A is the best option.

However, this is poor form when there are other options, since you are not defending the use of A outright, but rather seeing it favourably relative to B and C. If a concealed option D existed, then A > B u C is no longer sufficient reasoning.

21. One-sided argument is to argue for only one side of an argument, while remaining silent on the other side.

Rupert: It's clear that this holiday is a bad idea. It's expensive, and will take too much time to plan. Oh, and you've never been there before. You don't speak the language. Too much stress! Ah!

Miranda: Getting sick and tired of you and your concern trolling.

I know card-stacking ("slanting the deck") is a technique, but I only find it fallacious when parts of an argument are unfairly emphasised. In a debate, everyone is going to be promoting their own side. The proponent (Miranda) needs to explain why she thinks the holiday is good, it's not the opponent's (Rupert) job to make that case.

However, away from debate, this could be misleading if you omit valid reasons against your position.

26. Refuting the example involves demolishing the example while leaving the actual argument intact.

Yvette: Politicians are all liars. My local MP [member of parliament] promised he would help me, and I haven’t heard a word from him since.

Yakub: That’s not true: he sent you a note a few weeks ago.

This isn't fallacious either. In fact, it is Yvette who is in the wrong here, for using anecdotal evidence - and from one politician, her MP - to support a universal claim. However, let's be nice to her and assume that this is the only MP in the world, so "all" refers to him only. Yakub refutes the example by showing that the MP did in fact reply to Yvette's petition. We don't know what "help" she asked for, but it's unlikely based on Yakub's response that the guy told a fib. Since universals can be dismantled with even one counter example, the argument is defeated thus, also.

What do you all think?