Lemme muddy the water for ya..

So I'm trying to find 5 logical falllacies for a paper of mine.. Instead, I've found out how perspectives are presented to the populus:

-"Authoritative Statement": Scofield, the news: the perspective is assumed, not mentioned how or why.

-"Hope": "if/when this fibberding is up to speed/figured out, why, it could save the lives of millions!" This is just plain over-optimism. We all have it though. Our boss asks us, "can I have that by Friday, and you say, "No problem" knowing full well you'll need the weekend.

-"Alternative Perspective": to which people will respond, "I don't like it. I don't know why, I just don't like it." Non-fallacious, just 'different' (slate.com). Involves the use (couching) of statements like, "they argue" and "some say" with a mix of labelling what's normal.. a mix of 'hope' and 'authority'.

Aaahhh!! What happened to my pretty little world?

[hint] Slate.com is a dandy site for bursting people's bubbles.. IVF, neuroethics, neurotheology, abortion, addiction, politics and power, they've got it all!