Find ten examples of different logical fallacies. You can search through social media, mainstream news, comics, etc... You can also create examples yourself. Please do not use political logical fallacies, i. e. NO POLITICS ALLOWED.
Do not use "examples" of logical fallacies. You are to find, identify or create the examples on your own.
Describe and explain how each logical fallacy is present in your example.
And, finally, for each of your examples, explain how you would “cure” this logical fallacy by pointing out the logical error in the fallacy and by addressing what a logical and reasonable argument would look like, instead. For example:

Bandwagon fallacy: An argument is only appealing because of its growing popularity. For example, you are being asked to accept an argument based on peer pressure.

Example: Hey, everyone else is cheering for the Cowboys, so let’s do it too!

Cure: It is improbable that “everyone” is cheering for the same team. If you prefer a different team, don’t let others coerce you into doing or thinking their way because it is critical that one thinks for oneself.

An ad hominem fallacy uses personal attacks rather than logic. This fallacy occurs when someone rejects or criticizes another point of view based on the personal characteristics, ethnic background, physical appearance, or other non-relevant traits of the person who holds it. Ad hominem arguments are often used in politics, where they are often called "mudslinging." They are considered unethical because politicians can use them to manipulate voters' opinions against an opponent without addressing core issues.

A straw man argument attacks a different subject rather than the topic being discussed — often a more extreme version of the counter argument. The purpose of this misdirection is to make one's position look stronger than it actually is.  The straw man argument is appropriately named after a harmless, lifeless scarecrow. Instead of contending with the actual argument, they attack the equivalent of a lifeless bundle of straw — an easily defeated puppet that the opponent was never arguing for in the first place.

An appeal to ignorance (also known as an "argument from ignorance") argues that a proposition must be true because it has not been proven false or there is no evidence against it.

The argument can be used to bolster multiple contradictory conclusions at once, such as the following two claims:

"No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials exist, so they must not be real."

"No one has ever been able to prove that extraterrestrials do not exist, so they must be real."

An appeal to ignorance doesn't prove anything. Instead, it shifts the need for proof away from the person making a claim.

A false dilemma or false dichotomy presents limited options — typically by focusing on two extremes — when in fact more possibilities exist. The phrase "America: Love it or leave it" is an example of a false dilemma.  The false dilemma fallacy is a manipulative tool designed to polarize the audience, promoting one side and demonizing another. It's common in political discourse as a way of strong-arming the public into supporting controversial legislation or policies.

A slippery slope argument assumes that a certain course of action will necessarily lead to a chain of future events. The slippery slope fallacy takes a benign premise or starting point and suggests that it will lead to unlikely or ridiculous outcomes with no supporting evidence.  You may have used this fallacy on your parents as a teenager: "But you have to let me go to the party! If I don't go to the party, I'll be a loser with no friends. Next thing you know, I'll end up alone and jobless, living in your basement when I'm 30!"

Circular arguments occur when a person's argument repeats what they already assumed before without arriving at a new conclusion. For example, if someone says, "According to my brain, my brain is reliable," that's a circular argument.  Circular arguments often use a claim as both a premise and a conclusion. This fallacy only appears to be an argument when in fact it's just restating one's assumptions.

A hasty generalization is a claim based on a few examples rather than substantial proof. Arguments based on hasty generalizations often don't hold up due to a lack of supporting evidence: The claim might be true in one case, but that doesn't mean it's always true.  Hasty generalizations are common in arguments because there's a wide range of what's acceptable for "sufficient" evidence. The rules for evidence can change based on the claim you're making and the environment where you are making it — whether it's rooted in philosophy, the sciences, a political debate, or discussing house rules for using the kitchen.

A red herring is an argument that uses confusion or distraction to shift attention away from a topic and toward a false conclusion. Red herrings usually contain an unimportant fact, idea, or event that has little relevance to the real issue.  Red herrings are a common diversionary tactic when someone wants to shift the focus of an argument to something easier or safer to address. But red herrings can also be unintentional.

An appeal to hypocrisy — also known as the tu quoque fallacy — focuses on the hypocrisy of an opponent. The tu quoque fallacy deflects criticism away from oneself by accusing the other person of the same problem or something comparable.  The tu quoque fallacy is an attempt to divert blame. The fallacy usually occurs when the arguer uses apparent hypocrisy to neutralize criticism and distract from the issue.

Causal fallacies are informal fallacies that occur when an argument incorrectly concludes that a cause is related to an effect. Think of the causal fallacy as a parent category for other fallacies about unproven causes.  

correct!

hope this !

~coco

your answer is c) experiments with water vapor showed that elements combine in specific proportions.