Answer:
1. Straw man Fallacy
2. Equivocation Fallacy
3. Red Herring Fallacy
4. Red Herring Fallacy
Explanation:
1. "Jason is violently and passionately opposed to all cases of euthanasia. Therefore, all cases of euthanasia are morally wrong for Jason"
(Straw man Fallacy)
Exaggerating the argument to discredit it or presenting weak or false versions of statements in order to support a position which leads to false conclusion.
Example: "Mr. X says we should cut medical budget by 10 percent, Mr. X hates everyone and wants everyone to die."
2. "Nothing is better than a walk by the Atlantic ocean. Playing a game of competitive polka is better than nothing. Therefore, playing a game of competitive polka is better than a walk by the Atlantic ocean"
(Equivocation Fallacy)
Using ambiguity of meaning to mislead in an argument. The meaning of "nothing" is different in first and second sentence which leads to false conclusion.
Example: "Cats are better than nothing. Nothing is better than dogs. Therefore, dogs are better than cats"
3. "We can get permits to carry loaded guns in public, but we can’t smoke in the subway. That’s not logical."
(Red Herring Fallacy)
Instead of presenting an argument about the original issue, something irrelevant but emotional or convincing argument is presented to distract the opponent from the original issue. Smoking in public and carrying loaded guns in public are two unrelated issues. Often used in political scenarios to distract from the original issue.
Example: " The crime rate in the city has been increased. But the weather has changed also. lets be grateful to God."
4. "I should not get a speeding ticket for driving 66 MPH, because my driving did not all of a sudden get more dangerous when I passed the speed limit of 65 MPH".
(Red herring Fallacy)
Again same as before, just because your over-speeding didn't kill anyone doesn't mean that you should not get ticket for over-speeding. Trying to distract from the original issue.
