I need to identify if each premise is acceptable or unacceptable, and for this the conditions of acceptability are

acceptable by observation, testimony, authoritative testimony (only use if the premise explicitly refers to an authority), and a priori

And the conditions of unacceptability are, unacceptable by observation, testimony, a priori, problems in language (e.g. ambiguity), inconsistent premises, circular (begging the question)

I need help with
a) Women have a right to choose whether to have an abortion or not. Thus, abortion should be allowed. (only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)

b)Only claims that can be objectively verified can be trusted. Many people have reported encounters with ghosts. So, the existence of ghosts is likely to be true. (only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)

c)Only American opinions have any value

d)Several extinct species exist in the rain forest

e)It is highly conducive to the interests of the community that each individual should enjoy a liberty perfectly unlimited of expressing his sentiments. Thus, to every man unbounded freedom of speech must always be, on the whole, advantageous to the state(only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)

f)Wearing the Niqab is a barbaric woman-hating tribal custom. Therefore, women should not be permitted to wear the Niqab when taking the Canadian oath of citizenship.(only the first sentence is the one I'm looking at)

So, what do you think about these statements? Are they credible or not according to the criteria outlined? How about extinct species exist? If they are extinct, how can they exist? Let me know what you think about each of them and I'll be glad to discuss. I'll be in and out of Jiskha, but I'll be glad to work with you.