Answers:
E) Post HocB) Slippery slopeD) PopularityC) FearA) False Dichotomy
Explanations:
Part 1
The term "post hoc" has the longer name "post hoc ergo propter hoc". It's a Latin phrase that translates to "after this, therefore because of this". An example of a fallacy like is: "I turned on the sprinklers, then it started to rain outside. Therefore I caused it to rain". Clearly the sprinklers have no connection to the clouds on whether they release water or not. It was simply a coincidence the two events happened together like that.
Part 2
A slippery slope is when you start with one premise and then work your way in a chain reaction through more events. Those events may be directly connected or very loosely indirectly connected. Also, these events tend to get worse and worse as time goes on. An example of this would be a Direct TV ad that has this script "if the cable goes out, you get stressed. If you get stressed, you go on vacation. If you go on vacation, you get bitten by something exotic and your face swells up. Don't let your face swell up and ditch cable". I'm paraphrasing the ad. But the idea is that the fact the cable goes out leads to the person's face being swollen.
Part 3
The term "bandwagon fallacy" is also applicable here. Just because everyone says something is true doesn't always make it so. During the medieval period, people thought the sun revolved around the earth, but instead it's the other way around. So if someone said "the sun revolves around the earth because everyone else agrees", then they would be using a bandwagon fallacy. You would need to go out and do scientific studies and observations to prove the claim.
Part 4
Fear is a good motivator, as well as appealing to anger as well. Strong emotions like this tend to connect with people. It's likely due to just how people's brains are wired. There may be more factors as well. An example would be "vote for me or else my opponent will start another foreign war".
Part 5
A dichotomy is the idea of having 2 choices only. For example, a coin flip has 2 sides it could land on. A false dichotomy is where the person introduces only two choices for the audience to pick. This gives the audience some sense of interaction and choice. However, false dichotomy arguments tend to make one choice a very bad one while the other choice is either good or tolerable.
An example of this would be any time a political leader states "You're either with us or you're against us" usually when it involves some lead up to a war, or a war is already going on. The two sides "with us" and "against us" aren't the only possible options. It's possible to be neutral and not to be involved at all.
