John Muir makes an effective argument for saving the redwoods. He appeals to logic by giving evidence about the destruction. He seems very credible because he knows about the history of individual trees. Finally, he makes readers want to save the trees by using strong emotional language throughout.
I think 1 is non-sequitur and 2 is ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you attack the person rather than their position on the issue. In #2 their verbally attacking the person for not supporting veterans.
It was hard to ride.
It was very heavy
it had design flaws
