Verecundiam, argumentum ad 173suggestion to be opposed because it does not go far enough.
You show its imperfections, and suggest that something more
drastic is needed. This idea, therefore, should be rejected.
/ approve in principle of the proposal to have the benefits allocated by
lot, rather than by my personal decision, but this will still leave many
areas of patronage and influence untouched. I suggest that a much
wider measure is needed, looking at the whole field, and therefore I
propose that we refer this suggestion back...
(It was never seen again.)The second variant you can use has you calling for something
totally beyond the powers of those making the decision, and
thus sets something they cannot do in opposition to something
they can.
It's all very well to suggest stiffer penalties for cheating, Headmaster, but
that will not eradicate the problem. What we need instead is to win over
these boys and girls, to effect a change in their hearts and minds...
(The original proposal now exits amid a crescendo of violins.)Verecundiam, argumentum ad
This is the appeal to false authority. While it is perfectly in order
to cite as a supporting witness someone who has specialized
knowledge of the field concerned, it is a fallacy to suppose that
an expert in one field can lend support in another. Unless he has
special expertise, he is a false authority.
Hundreds of leading scientists reject evolution.
(Close examination shows few, if any, whose expertise is in evolu-
tionary biology.)