I have 3 that I am not sure of:

1. In one of her columns, Abigail Van Buren printed the letter of “I’d rather
be a widow.” The letter writer, a divorcée, complained about widows
who said they had a hard time coping. Far better, she wrote, to be a
widow than to be a divorcée, who are all “rejects” who have been “publicly
dumped” and are avoided “like they have leprosy.” Abby recognized
the pseudo reasoning for what it was, though she did not call it by our
name. What is our name for it?

Is this a false dilemma?

2.Letter to the editor: “Once again the Park Commission is considering
closing North Park Drive for the sake of a few joggers and bicyclists.
These so-called fitness enthusiasts would evidently have us give up to
them for their own private use every last square inch of Walnut Grove.
Then anytime anyone wanted a picnic, he would have to park at the
edge of the park and carry everything in—ice chests, chairs, maybe even
grandma. I certainly hope the Commission keeps the entire park open
for everyone to use.”
Is this a slippery slope?

3.“Some Christian—and other—groups are protesting against the placing,
on federal property near the White House, of a set of plastic figurines representing
a devout Jewish family in ancient Judaea. The protestors would
of course deny that they are driven by any anti-Semitic motivation. Still,
we wonder: Would they raise the same objections (of unconstitutionality,
etc.) if the scene depicted a modern, secularized Gentile family?”
— National Review
Is this a circumstancial ad hominem

I would agree with you.