Hello. What fallacies are committed in these passages?

What fallacies do you detect in these passages:
"Dozens of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it. Clearly, we should repeal the Endangered Species Act", and
" People are driving their cars like maniacs tonight. There must be a full moon".
Thank You in advance! I found these passages from an introductory logic textbook I am reading.

Hi, Krista!

It is appropriate to recognize both examples as enthymemes. They are invalid arguments but purport to be persuasive on the assumption that the audience agrees to certain unstated premises. These unstated premises assumed to be input by the audience are called “tacit statements”.

I think that the tacit statement that should be added to complete the first argument is: if dozens of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it, then we should repeal the Endangered Species Act. Including this tacit statement, the completed argument would read:

1. Dozens of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it. [the original premise]
2. If dozens of plants and animals are being wiped out every year, even though we have laws to prevent it, then we should repeal the Endangered Species Act. [the added tacit statement]
Therefore,
1. We should repeal the Endangered Species Act. [the original conclusion]

For the second argument, I think that the tacit statement that should be added to complete it is: people drive their cars like maniacs only if there is a full moon. Including the tacit statement, the argument would read:

1. People are driving their cars like maniacs, tonight. [the original premise]
2. People drive their cars like maniacs only if there is a full moon. [the added tacit statement]
Therefore,
3. There must be a full moon. [the original conclusion]

I think that the tacit statements I add are faithful to how the defenders of these arguments would intend to argue. In this case, each of the completed arguments is valid. They also contain no fallacies, as far as I know, though there are hundreds of fallacies and I don’t know them all. However, in each case, you should doubt the truthfulness of the second premises (the tacit statements). The arguments are not good argument, but not because they are invalid or fallacious. Rather, they are not good because they contain at least one false premise.

In sum, each argument is invalid as given in your post. However, they should be recognized as enthymemes. I attempted to add the appropriate tacit statement(s) and have found that the completed arguments are valid and, to answer your questions, not fallacious. However, the arguments are not good arguments.

Thank you for your question, Krista

From, Kaiden

False Choice.

Non sequitor.

The first one is an example of the Nirvana Fallacy. It does not follow that because some plants and animals go extinct that laws to protect them are useless. If there were no laws then plants and animals would die at a faster rate. The gun lobby makes this argument: Why make laws to prevent law abiding citizens from buying guns when criminals get them illegally? Well all gun control laws work to prevent some people from getting guns. It is really hard to stop them all but every bit of regulation helps.